Thanks to reader Steven Sholk, I learned that the U.S. Supreme Court recently considered the “ordinary meaning” of the words because of. Here’s how the CCH Workday blog described the issue: Construing this critical preposition in the text of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a five-Justice majority concluded the statute’s requirement that an adverse employment action was taken … Read More
You can find plenty of discussion online, at Above the Law and elsewhere, of the new “apprenticeship” model of first-year-associatedom at a handful of law firms. I suggest that such firms have a choice: either they’re going to give their apprentices the same old training, just more of it, or they’re going to use their new programs as an occasion … Read More
Methinks forthwith has as a fusty, moldy air about it. I wasn’t surprised to see it included, along with the likes of hither and mayhap, in this list of quaintly archaic words. But lo and behold, forthwith was used in 502 contracts filed in the past month on the SEC’s EDGAR system, as compared with 1704 contracts using a more … Read More
Today the Law Shucks blog posted this item about a former IBM executive, David L. Johnson, who is claiming that his noncompetition agreement with IBM is unenforceable. One element of his defense is that he signed the contract in the space where IBM was supposed to sign. According to Bloomberg: Johnson told Robinson he signed the agreement on the space where … Read More
In this comment to a previous post, reader Mark Anderson expressed a preference for saying that parties are obliged to do something, rather than obligated. He suggested that use of the verb obligate is the result of the noun obligation being pressed into service as a verb. Here’s the opening paragraph of what A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage has … Read More
In the course of considering, for purposes of today’s post on time is of the essence, how contracts are drafted in Quebec, I came across an oddity of the sort that I wouldn’t have expected to encounter in contract language—an instance of “false friends,” in other words pairs of words in two different languages that sound similar but have different … Read More
At the 2008 ABA annual meeting I appeared on a panel with Kevin Kyte, partner at the Montreal office of Stikeman Elliott. Kevin’s topic was things to bear in mind when drafting contracts governed by the law of a civil-law jurisdiction. It’s a topic I haven’t seen addressed in print, so I permit myself to bug Kevin sporadically. Yesterday I … Read More
I received the following cry of despair from a Canadian reader: I’m preparing a partnership agreement and have been given precedent to work with. Using MSCD, I have spent some time trying to rework the precedent’s archaic language to make it more readable. It says, several times, “Each of the Partners severally represents, warrants, covenants and agrees with each other … Read More
I’ve recently seen and heard references to companies offshoring the task of drafting contracts. For example, this article in today’s London Times says that Rio Tinto has hired a team of Indian lawyers “to work for it on tasks such as reviewing documents and drafting contracts.” If that means having your offshore lawyers handle hundreds of equipment-lease deals by revising … Read More
Recently I wanted to find out more about use of expert testimony to resolve contract ambiguity. (Remember, ambiguity arises when a contract provision is capable of expressing two or more inconsistent meanings.) So I consulted Walter R. Lancaster & Damian D. Capozzola, Expert Witnesses in Civil Trials. I learned that “it remains a basis for objection [to expert testimony] that … Read More
