Comments on: “May But Is Not Required To”

By: Eran Kahana

Eran Kahana — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:18:54 +0000

I totally agree it’s lame. However, I do a substantial amount of international drafting and negotiation. Language that sends shivers down our (Anglo-Saxon legal) spine, such as this, gets me a whats-the-big-deal-lets-include-it gaze from the other side’s counsel.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:59:46 +0000

I agree with all the above commnets; however, having “been there” I can see that this language may have come from talking with clients who each wanted language that THEY thought was clear – only it may actually not be!

By: 10803

10803 — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:32:06 +0000

I agree it’s lame and wouldn’t do it. One thing I can think of is that they’re trying to avoid some feared confusion between definitions of may as “is able to”, “is permitted to” or “might.”

More likely, they didn’t think about it at all and just liked the way it sounded.

By: mike

mike — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:33:01 +0000

The example you use is even funnier when you think that the author went discretion crazy by adding “at Esprit’s election”.

So Indevus has discretion to help Espirit, but only when Esprit wants it. But if Esprit wants help, Indevus doesn’t have to do anything.

I don’t know the entire context of this clause, but it seems reasonable to me that FDA Approvals might be one of those situations that calls for less discretion and a clearer set of obligations. Indevus may have a huge incentive to say, “well… you know, I’m sorry you can’t get your approvals, but I just don’t have time unless you give me more money.”

By: steven pappas

steven pappas — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:22:09 +0000

Ken: I believe you are missing nothing here. I see this usage frequently and it shakes me to my core. Only a lazy drafter would conclude he is adding anything to ‘may’ with “but is not required to.” You are being kind with ‘lame.’