Comments on: Yet More on “Indemnify” and “Hold Harmless” http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/ Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:12:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » Revisiting “Indemnify and Hold Harmless” http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-89217 AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » Revisiting “Indemnify and Hold Harmless” Mon, 11 May 2009 04:38:43 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/#comment-89217 [...] MSCD 12.134 and in these blog posts, I recommend that you rid your contracts of the phrase indemnify and hold harmless. Most [...] [...] MSCD 12.134 and in these blog posts, I recommend that you rid your contracts of the phrase indemnify and hold harmless. Most [...]

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-3344 Ken Adams Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:49:42 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/#comment-3344 Mike: As I suggested in my <a href="http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/10/21/hold-harmless-and-indemnify/" rel="nofollow">October 2006 post</a>, it's a straightforward matter to craft indemnification language using only <em>indemnify</em> that would cover the meaning attributed to <em>hold harmless</em> by Mellinkoff. And regarding <em>defend</em>, I prefer to address explicitly, in separate language, the procedures for handling non-party claims. Ken Mike: As I suggested in my October 2006 post, it’s a straightforward matter to craft indemnification language using only indemnify that would cover the meaning attributed to hold harmless by Mellinkoff.

And regarding defend, I prefer to address explicitly, in separate language, the procedures for handling non-party claims.

Ken

]]> By: mike http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/comment-page-1/#comment-3343 mike Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:38:59 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/08/yet-more-on-indemnify-and-hold-harmless/#comment-3343 I wonder, though, if there's a flip side to that coin. If you don't include one, do you give the other side an argument that you meant to exclude a particular meaning. I'm pretty sure I would try it. The number of articles you've written on this so far makes it fairly simple to construct different meanings from "indemnify" and "hold harmless" (even a google search for "define:hold harmless" and "define:indemnify" generates two different and not necessarily overlapping definitions). Just out of curiosity, in the cited clause, do you think that "defend" is redundant? It's probably that the result is the same, but it's an entirely different obligation. I wonder, though, if there’s a flip side to that coin. If you don’t include one, do you give the other side an argument that you meant to exclude a particular meaning. I’m pretty sure I would try it. The number of articles you’ve written on this so far makes it fairly simple to construct different meanings from “indemnify” and “hold harmless” (even a google search for “define:hold harmless” and “define:indemnify” generates two different and not necessarily overlapping definitions).

Just out of curiosity, in the cited clause, do you think that “defend” is redundant? It’s probably that the result is the same, but it’s an entirely different obligation.

]]>