Comments on: Keep This Stuff Out of Your Contracts http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:08:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90684 Ken Adams Tue, 26 May 2009 19:49:40 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90684 Keith: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. I've deleted <em>can</em> and <em>cannot</em> from the list of shame because they can in fact be used legitimately in certain contexts. I would have done well to consult myself on the subject: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/11/03/can-and-cannot/. Ken Keith: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. I’ve deleted can and cannot from the list of shame because they can in fact be used legitimately in certain contexts. I would have done well to consult myself on the subject: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/11/03/can-and-cannot/. Ken

]]> By: Keith Thomson http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90678 Keith Thomson Tue, 26 May 2009 18:48:17 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90678 Ken, You list "cannot" as a word to avoid. However, in MSCD (2nd ed) 16.36, it states "cannot" should be used in preference to the lawyerism "is unable to". Please clarify where usage of "cannot" is, or is not, acceptable. Thanks, Keith Ken,

You list “cannot” as a word to avoid. However, in MSCD (2nd ed) 16.36, it states “cannot” should be used in preference to the lawyerism “is unable to”.

Please clarify where usage of “cannot” is, or is not, acceptable.

Thanks,
Keith

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90651 Ken Adams Tue, 26 May 2009 14:13:14 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90651 Jonathan: Welcome! As I noted in the post, you can find my thoughts on the listed items in <em>MSCD</em> or on the blog (use the search tool). I knew that including <em>third party</em> might puzzle some people. I just realized that I haven't done a blog item about <em>third party</em>. I might do one shortly. Ken Jonathan: Welcome! As I noted in the post, you can find my thoughts on the listed items in MSCD or on the blog (use the search tool).

I knew that including third party might puzzle some people. I just realized that I haven’t done a blog item about third party. I might do one shortly.

Ken

]]> By: Jonathan Parkes http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90649 Jonathan Parkes Tue, 26 May 2009 14:04:33 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90649 Ken, I've just stumbled across your site (and a useful 2006 post about "defend, indemnify and hold harmless") and am find it fascinating reading so far! However, as an English lawyer, I was intrigued by some of the inclusions in the list above and wondered if you could put a little explanation against each one. Some are obvious, but others, such as "third party" are more puzzling. Best wishes, Jonathan Ken,

I’ve just stumbled across your site (and a useful 2006 post about “defend, indemnify and hold harmless”) and am find it fascinating reading so far! However, as an English lawyer, I was intrigued by some of the inclusions in the list above and wondered if you could put a little explanation against each one. Some are obvious, but others, such as “third party” are more puzzling.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

]]> By: Great Reads from the Blogroll | PLBT http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90085 Great Reads from the Blogroll | PLBT Wed, 20 May 2009 05:01:17 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90085 [...] Adams Drafting: “Keep This Stuff Out of Your Contracts.” [...] [...] Adams Drafting: “Keep This Stuff Out of Your Contracts.” [...]

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90038 Ken Adams Tue, 19 May 2009 14:37:54 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90038 Steve: Thanks for your additions; I concur with your first suggestion and will need to explore contexts in which drafters use <em>in terms of</em>. And which items on my list do you use, and why? If you use them and I don't, one of us is being less efficient than the other. May the more efficient win! Ken Steve: Thanks for your additions; I concur with your first suggestion and will need to explore contexts in which drafters use in terms of.

And which items on my list do you use, and why? If you use them and I don’t, one of us is being less efficient than the other. May the more efficient win!

Ken

]]> By: Steve Waters http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-90036 Steve Waters Tue, 19 May 2009 14:30:21 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/05/18/keep-this-stuff-out-of-your-contracts/#comment-90036 Ken, I'd add: in the event that (should be "if") and in terms of (think of something else) I DO use some of the forbidden, and fastidiously avoid others. Thanks. Steve Ken,

I’d add:

in the event that (should be “if”) and

in terms of (think of something else)

I DO use some of the forbidden, and fastidiously avoid others.

Thanks.

Steve

]]>