Comments on: The Benefits of Sloppy Drafting? http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/comment-page-1/#comment-24115 Ken Adams Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:56:07 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/#comment-24115 Stan, Fitz: I can understand the parties to a contract wanting to skirt a contentious issue, leaving it to the courts to handle should it ever becomes a source of contention. But I think it unlikely that they'd choose to accomplish that by including an ambiguity, namely a word or phrase to which one can attribute two or more meanings. That would be going out of your way to ask for trouble. (One party's sneaking ambiguity into a contract in order to be able to be able to invoke thereafter an alternative meaning is a different matter entirely, one that I discuss in <a href="http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/10/29/gamesmanship-in-contract-drafting/" rel="nofollow">this blog post</a>.) It's more likely that they'd accomplish that goal by being vague. (Vagueness is a function of imprecision.) Don't get me started on exactly what vagueness is—it's a question I've been debating with a linguist. But the best-known vehicles of vagueness are words like <em>promptly</em> and <em>material</em>. And vagueness certainly isn't sloppy. It's a legitimate drafting tool that has no bearing on the sort of incoherence and redundancy that Mark Salmon alluded to in his post. Ken Stan, Fitz: I can understand the parties to a contract wanting to skirt a contentious issue, leaving it to the courts to handle should it ever becomes a source of contention.

But I think it unlikely that they’d choose to accomplish that by including an ambiguity, namely a word or phrase to which one can attribute two or more meanings. That would be going out of your way to ask for trouble. (One party’s sneaking ambiguity into a contract in order to be able to be able to invoke thereafter an alternative meaning is a different matter entirely, one that I discuss in this blog post.)

It’s more likely that they’d accomplish that goal by being vague. (Vagueness is a function of imprecision.) Don’t get me started on exactly what vagueness is—it’s a question I’ve been debating with a linguist. But the best-known vehicles of vagueness are words like promptly and material.

And vagueness certainly isn’t sloppy. It’s a legitimate drafting tool that has no bearing on the sort of incoherence and redundancy that Mark Salmon alluded to in his post.

Ken

]]> By: john fitz http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/comment-page-1/#comment-24104 john fitz Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:24:46 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/#comment-24104 Stan is on to something... One man's "sloppy" is another's intentional ambiguity. I learned from a very seasoned litigator-turned-transactional attorney, who repeatedly told me that "if a phrase is capable of more than one meaning, you must be certain that you intend this result - because in litigation all possible interpretations will be exposed". Stan is on to something… One man’s “sloppy” is another’s intentional ambiguity. I learned from a very seasoned litigator-turned-transactional attorney, who repeatedly told me that “if a phrase is capable of more than one meaning, you must be certain that you intend this result – because in litigation all possible interpretations will be exposed”.

]]> By: Stan http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/comment-page-1/#comment-24075 Stan Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:08:36 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/#comment-24075 "Sloppy drafting" may also reflect "intentional ambiguity". Often, the parties to an agreement may settle on wording that is ambiguous or vague in order to conclude the matter, hoping (or trusting) that the sloppiness (i.e. ambiguity)will never have to be dealt with. I would like to hear your musings on this. “Sloppy drafting” may also reflect “intentional ambiguity”. Often, the parties to an agreement may settle on wording that is ambiguous or vague in order to conclude the matter, hoping (or trusting) that the sloppiness (i.e. ambiguity)will never have to be dealt with. I would like to hear your musings on this.

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/comment-page-1/#comment-24067 Ken Adams Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:27:58 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/#comment-24067 Anon.: Good point! I was a little too glib. Ken Anon.: Good point! I was a little too glib. Ken

]]> By: Anon. http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/comment-page-1/#comment-24065 Anon. Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:24:06 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/12/sloppy-drafting/#comment-24065 "[A] simpler explanation for sloppy drafting is sloppy drafters." Additionally, sloppy drafting is often the result of a sloppy drafting process(which is something frequently discussed on this blog). “[A] simpler explanation for sloppy drafting is sloppy drafters.”

Additionally, sloppy drafting is often the result of a sloppy drafting process(which is something frequently discussed on this blog).

]]>