August 10, 2006 “For the Avoidance of Doubt”

How’s this for a categorical statement: Never use for the avoidance of doubt.

Sometimes a drafter will use this phrase in a contract to introduce language that seeks to clarify preceding language, usually by indicating that something either falls within or is excluded from the scope of the preceding language. In this context, for the avoidance of doubt says, in effect, “excuse us if we state the obvious.”

And that obviousness would allow you simply to delete for the avoidance of doubt, because the language that follows doesn’t alter, in any meaningful way, one’s understanding of the preceding language. Consider, for example, the following provision, which I’ve revised so as to eliminate for the avoidance of doubt (deleted language is in strikethrough; new language is in brackets):

This arbitration agreement applies to all matters relating to this agreement, the RSU Agreement, and the Executive’s employment with and/or termination of employment from the Company, including without limitation disputes about the validity, interpretation, or effect of this agreement, or alleged violations of it, any payments due hereunder or thereunder and all claims arising out of any alleged discrimination, harassment or retaliation. For the avoidance of doubt, this [This] arbitration agreement does not apply to any dispute under the Indemnification Agreement.

When for the avoidance of doubt is used in this manner in a definition, you might want to tidy up the definition by making it a single sentence, as in the following example:

Insider Shares” means all shares of Common Stock owned by an Insider immediately before the Company’s IPO. For the avoidance of doubt, Insider Shares shall not include [and excludes without limitation] any IPO Shares purchased by Insiders in connection with or subsequent to the Company’s IPO.

But at some point, it can be a little ridiculous to state the blindingly obvious. The immediately preceding example would seem a good example of that—instead you might want to strike the second sentence entirely.

Sometimes for the avoidance of doubt serves no purpose, in that the language that follows doesn’t refer to something that falls within or is excluded from the scope of the preceding language:

Nothing in this agreement gives to any Person other than the parties and their successors, the Owner Trustee, any separate trustee or co-trustee appointed under section 6.10 of the Indenture, the Note Insurer, the Swap Counterparty, and the Noteholders, any benefit or any legal or equitable right, remedy, or claim under this agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the [The] Owner Trustee, the Note Insurer, and the Swap Counterparty are third-party beneficiaries of this agreement and are entitled to the rights and benefits under this agreement and may enforce the provisions of this agreement as if they were a party to it.

Sometimes for the avoidance of doubt is used as a wishy-washy alternative to having a party acknowledge a given fact:

For the avoidance of doubt, [The Seller acknowledges that] InvestBank has implemented reasonable policies and procedures, taking into consideration the nature of its business, to ensure that individuals making investment decisions would not violate laws prohibiting trading on the basis of material nonpublic information.

And often enough, for the avoidance of doubt serves as a low-grade and entirely dispensable form of rhetorical emphasis:

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing [Nothing] in this agreement gives Acme any rights to any of Pharmaco’s compounds or methods of compound synthesis, including the Pharmaco Product, the Pharmaco Technology, any Patent Rights owned, licensed or controlled by Pharmaco, or any Pharmaco Confidential Information.

The Executive will be responsible for paying any tax and employee’s national insurance contributions imposed by any taxation authority in respect of any of the payments and benefits provided under this agreement (other than for the avoidance of doubt any tax and/or employee’s national insurance contributions deducted or withheld by the Company in paying the sums to the Executive).

But even without the benefit of these examples, it’s clear enough from the clunky buried verb avoidance that for the avoidance of doubt is a turkey. (See MSCD 13.7 for more on buried verbs.)

Bookmark and Share

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

4 Comments to ““For the Avoidance of Doubt””

  1. Theodore Weitz says:

    I stumbled across this posting from a cross reference, so please excuse the late comment. My sense is that the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt” is a common British usage that has crept into American drafting. I do not agree that striking it does not alter the meaning. In my experience “for the avoidance of doubt” is use to give an example that is not necessarily exhaustive. Removing it runs the risk of appearing to be a complete list, under the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” That would be the case in several of your examples. It could often be replaced by a simple “for example,” but not stricken. If you want a phrase that is truly useless, try “to the contrary notwithstanding” — a truly meaningless phrase, inserted solely to make sentences longer and more pondeorus).

  2. Ken Adams says:

    Theodore: If you’re seeking to follow one provision with some illustrative examples, then “for the avoidance of doubt” is not what you need. Best regards, Ken

  3. AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » “It Being Understood” says:

    [...] it being understood serves the same function as for the avoidance of doubt, in that it introduces language that seeks to clarify preceding language: If and to the extent that [...]

  4. AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » More Words Not to Include in a Contract— “Therefore” and Its Relatives says:

    [...] In this example, thus is serving the same same function as that turkey for the avoidance of doubt. [...]

Post a comment