Comments on: Does Any Law Require All Capitals? http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Jan http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-95727 Jan Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:41:36 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-95727 That is not true. The FTC expressly states in the statement of basis and purpose that there is no font requirement. That is not true. The FTC expressly states in the statement of basis and purpose that there is no font requirement.

]]> By: Guest One http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-95113 Guest One Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:58:09 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-95113 The FTC Franchise Rule mandates the use of all caps, bold font, and other styles for use in Franchise Disclosure Documents. Some states (Illinois) will actually deny registration based on failure to follow the typecase requirements by the FTC. The FTC Franchise Rule mandates the use of all caps, bold font, and other styles for use in Franchise Disclosure Documents. Some states (Illinois) will actually deny registration based on failure to follow the typecase requirements by the FTC.

]]> By: AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » Disclaiming the Warranty of Title in Sales of Goods http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-94654 AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » Disclaiming the Warranty of Title in Sales of Goods Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:33:51 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-94654 [...] By the way, a reminder: disclaimer language doesn’t have to be in all capitals in order to be “conspicuous,” as required under the UCC. See this February 2008 blog post. [...] [...] By the way, a reminder: disclaimer language doesn’t have to be in all capitals in order to be “conspicuous,” as required under the UCC. See this February 2008 blog post. [...]

]]> By: Mike Wasylik http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-92960 Mike Wasylik Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:00:30 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-92960 § 501.1377 (5)(a) 1. provides, in part: "A foreclosure-rescue transaction must include a written agreement prepared in at least 12-point uppercase type..." Unclear as to whether the "at least" applies merely to the "12-point" or also to the "uppercase." ("But your honor, it's in uppercase AND italics...") § 501.1377 (5)(a) 1. provides, in part:

“A foreclosure-rescue transaction must include a written agreement prepared in at least 12-point uppercase type…”

Unclear as to whether the “at least” applies merely to the “12-point” or also to the “uppercase.”

(“But your honor, it’s in uppercase AND italics…”)

]]> By: Micheas http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-92824 Micheas Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:50:27 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-92824 An additional note, Most 10pt fonts are not 10pts from the bottom of a capital letter to the top of the capital letter. SCOTUS rejects many(most?) filings to them because of this issue with computer generated fonts generally being undersized. Laws specifying exact font size seem to me to be ripe for litigation. (also I would invest in a ruler with points on it to check on minimum font size. instead of trying to figure out if the font is greater than 3.528mm or not. Just thinking about applying to law school at a time when there are no job openings in the legal profession. An additional note,

Most 10pt fonts are not 10pts from the bottom of a capital letter to the top of the capital letter.

SCOTUS rejects many(most?) filings to them because of this issue with computer generated fonts generally being undersized.

Laws specifying exact font size seem to me to be ripe for litigation. (also I would invest in a ruler with points on it to check on minimum font size. instead of trying to figure out if the font is greater than 3.528mm or not.

Just thinking about applying to law school at a time when there are no job openings in the legal profession.

]]> By: John Tomlinson http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-92823 John Tomlinson Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:24:15 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-92823 Putting a box around something *might* make it more conspicuous, but also suggests to the reader that it can be skipped. In traditional graphic design, items in boxes are not key elements of the text but are examples or supplementary information -- think of sidebars as an example. Bold or italics make more sense. Putting a box around something *might* make it more conspicuous, but also suggests to the reader that it can be skipped. In traditional graphic design, items in boxes are not key elements of the text but are examples or supplementary information — think of sidebars as an example.

Bold or italics make more sense.

]]> By: Duke Tufty http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-92240 Duke Tufty Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:47:49 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-92240 ORS 71.2010 provides an interesting definition of "Conspicuous" that differentiates between text in the heading or the body of an agreement: (10) “Conspicuous”: A term or clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A printed heading in capitals (as: NONNEGOTIABLE BILL OF LADING) is conspicuous. Language in the body of a form is “conspicuous” if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color. But in a telegram any stated term is “conspicuous.” Whether a term or clause is “conspicuous” or not is for decision by the court. Interestingly, all caps is used as an example for how to make heading conspicuous, but not for language in the body of an agreement. ORS 71.2010 provides an interesting definition of “Conspicuous” that differentiates between text in the heading or the body of an agreement:

(10) “Conspicuous”: A term or clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A printed heading in capitals (as: NONNEGOTIABLE BILL OF LADING) is conspicuous. Language in the body of a form is “conspicuous” if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color. But in a telegram any stated term is “conspicuous.” Whether a term or clause is “conspicuous” or not is for decision by the court.

Interestingly, all caps is used as an example for how to make heading conspicuous, but not for language in the body of an agreement.

]]> By: AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » The Conspicuousness Requirement of Texas’s “Express Negligence” Rule http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-88137 AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » The Conspicuousness Requirement of Texas’s “Express Negligence” Rule Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:39:16 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-88137 [...] the Uniform Commerical Code’s standard for conspicuousness. As explained in MSCD 15.37 and in this February 2008 blog post, for something to be conspicuous under the UCC it doesn’t need to be in all capitals, so it [...] [...] the Uniform Commerical Code’s standard for conspicuousness. As explained in MSCD 15.37 and in this February 2008 blog post, for something to be conspicuous under the UCC it doesn’t need to be in all capitals, so it [...]

]]> By: gaks http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-51860 gaks Tue, 06 May 2008 02:25:44 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-51860 I was searching the UCC form for my state and right above the PDF of the form it states: "EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2001 DUE TO NEW POLICIES IN THE UCC DIVISION ALL FORMS MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN, INCLUDING SEARCHES. THIS MEANS THAT WE WILL START REJECTING ALL HANDWRITTEN INFORMATION, SUCH AS TYPE OF ORGANIZATION, JURISDICTION AND ORGANIZATION ID NUMBER. ALSO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE DEBTOR AND SECURED PARTY INFORMATION MUST BE IN ALL CAPS AND 12 POINT TIMES NEW ROMAN FONT." I was searching the UCC form for my state and right above the PDF of the form it states:

“EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2001

DUE TO NEW POLICIES IN THE UCC DIVISION ALL FORMS MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN, INCLUDING SEARCHES. THIS MEANS THAT WE WILL START REJECTING ALL HANDWRITTEN INFORMATION, SUCH AS TYPE OF ORGANIZATION, JURISDICTION AND ORGANIZATION ID NUMBER. ALSO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE DEBTOR AND SECURED PARTY INFORMATION MUST BE IN ALL CAPS AND 12 POINT TIMES NEW ROMAN FONT.”

]]> By: Seven sixteenths of one inch… « The Legal Satyricon http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/comment-page-1/#comment-48254 Seven sixteenths of one inch… « The Legal Satyricon Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:26:57 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/all-capitals/#comment-48254 [...] you want to go to the wellspring of contract drafting knowledge, Adams Drafting is the shiznit. In this post, he debunks the fairy tale that some laws require the use of all caps, and gives us some great dicta [...] [...] you want to go to the wellspring of contract drafting knowledge, Adams Drafting is the shiznit. In this post, he debunks the fairy tale that some laws require the use of all caps, and gives us some great dicta [...]

]]>