Comments on: “Forthwith”—A Quaint Archaism http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/ Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:12:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Pete Haskel http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/comment-page-1/#comment-92738 Pete Haskel Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:44:23 +0000 http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/06/28/forthwith/#comment-92738 A note on the list of archaic terms to which your post links . I suspect that your readers who practice admiralty law may disagree that such listed words such as abaft, alee, and athwart have faded from use. These words may be old, but they still have vitality when properly used. A note on the list of archaic terms to which your post links . I suspect that your readers who practice admiralty law may disagree that such listed words such as abaft, alee, and athwart have faded from use. These words may be old, but they still have vitality when properly used.

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/comment-page-1/#comment-92608 Ken Adams Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:07:10 +0000 http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/06/28/forthwith/#comment-92608 Jeff: Sorry to be late responding to your comment, which I only now retrieved from the spam pile. In this case, the search terms I used were the words at issue—no surprise there. I mostly search the exhibit 10 (Material Contracts) filings, although for M&A purposes I'll usually search exhibit 2 (Acquisition and Reorganization Plans). As to why I use EDGAR, if you have suggestions for an alternative corpus I might use, I'm all ears. Ken Jeff: Sorry to be late responding to your comment, which I only now retrieved from the spam pile.

In this case, the search terms I used were the words at issue—no surprise there. I mostly search the exhibit 10 (Material Contracts) filings, although for M&A purposes I’ll usually search exhibit 2 (Acquisition and Reorganization Plans).

As to why I use EDGAR, if you have suggestions for an alternative corpus I might use, I’m all ears.

Ken

]]> By: Vance Koven http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/comment-page-1/#comment-92609 Vance Koven Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:38:37 +0000 http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/06/28/forthwith/#comment-92609 So, if you want someone to do something really, really, really fast, right away, and your contract is governed by New York law, can you say "in a New York minute"? Note: the first time I ever heard that expression, I assumed it meant at a *leisurely* pace, since nobody in New York is on time for anything--which is why plays that start at 8:00 don't really start until ten past. So, if you want someone to do something really, really, really fast, right away, and your contract is governed by New York law, can you say “in a New York minute”?

Note: the first time I ever heard that expression, I assumed it meant at a *leisurely* pace, since nobody in New York is on time for anything–which is why plays that start at 8:00 don’t really start until ten past.

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/comment-page-1/#comment-92607 Ken Adams Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:41:30 +0000 http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/06/28/forthwith/#comment-92607 Mark: Given your trauma, you might find of interest <a href="http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2008/02/04/promptly-and-immediately/" rel="nofollow">this February 2008 post</a> about <em>promptly</em> and <em>immediately</em>. Ken Mark: Given your trauma, you might find of interest this February 2008 post about promptly and immediately. Ken

]]> By: Mark Anderson http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/comment-page-1/#comment-92606 Mark Anderson Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:59:44 +0000 http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/06/28/forthwith/#comment-92606 As a junior lawyer, I once tried to use "immediately" rather than "forthwith" when drafting an agreement, for just the reason you mention. This provoked, from the partner who was reviewing my draft, a deep discussion of whether immediately might be misunderstood as meaning "next to" or physically proximate rather than immediate in time, and whether immediate was as short a time frame as forthwith. He also pointed out that the courts were familiar with the duration of forthwith in the context of court orders. His conclusion was that he preferred forthwith. I was so traumatised by this discussion (about 18 years ago) that I haven't had the courage to go back to immediately or think up some other word. Perhaps after reading this blog I will feel able to put this experience behind me... :) As a junior lawyer, I once tried to use “immediately” rather than “forthwith” when drafting an agreement, for just the reason you mention. This provoked, from the partner who was reviewing my draft, a deep discussion of whether immediately might be misunderstood as meaning “next to” or physically proximate rather than immediate in time, and whether immediate was as short a time frame as forthwith. He also pointed out that the courts were familiar with the duration of forthwith in the context of court orders. His conclusion was that he preferred forthwith.

I was so traumatised by this discussion (about 18 years ago) that I haven’t had the courage to go back to immediately or think up some other word. Perhaps after reading this blog I will feel able to put this experience behind me… :)

]]> By: Jeff Gordon http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/06/28/forthwith/comment-page-1/#comment-92605 Jeff Gordon Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:44:53 +0000 http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/06/28/forthwith/#comment-92605 Ken: Do you mind sharing your EDGAR search URL with us? You use EDGAR significantly to discuss the usage of various terms and I've not been able to replicate your results. Additionally, I'd like to learn a little more about why you choose EDGAR as the standard by which you measure phrase usage. It seems to me that while it's an available repository, it's quite skewed to very specific types of documents (public companies don't file all of their contracts with the SEC). Ken:

Do you mind sharing your EDGAR search URL with us? You use EDGAR significantly to discuss the usage of various terms and I’ve not been able to replicate your results.

Additionally, I’d like to learn a little more about why you choose EDGAR as the standard by which you measure phrase usage. It seems to me that while it’s an available repository, it’s quite skewed to very specific types of documents (public companies don’t file all of their contracts with the SEC).

]]>