<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;In Particular&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2010/01/11/in-particular/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2010/01/11/in-particular/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gil</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2010/01/11/in-particular/comment-page-1/#comment-94660</link>
		<dc:creator>Gil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsdrafting.com/?p=2088#comment-94660</guid>
		<description>Ken, Just to continue from what you write about letting the provisions speak for themselves: In your first example, there would be no need for &#039;in particular&#039; if &#039;confidential information&#039; was defined - I&#039;m assuming that it isn&#039;t.

In your fifth example, there seems to be an asymmetry between the first sentence and the second one. &#039;Company&#039; is not mentioned in the former but is in the latter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ken, Just to continue from what you write about letting the provisions speak for themselves: In your first example, there would be no need for &#8216;in particular&#8217; if &#8216;confidential information&#8217; was defined &#8211; I&#8217;m assuming that it isn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>In your fifth example, there seems to be an asymmetry between the first sentence and the second one. &#8216;Company&#8217; is not mentioned in the former but is in the latter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2010/01/11/in-particular/comment-page-1/#comment-94651</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:24:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsdrafting.com/?p=2088#comment-94651</guid>
		<description>I would use &quot;in particular&quot; if there is an identified risk and I don&#039;t want any doubt that the other party is knowingly assuming the risk, particularly if I think they&#039;re taking a flyer on it, e.g., your example &quot;such counsel has carefully reviewed with it the terms and legal consequences of the Exchange and, in particular, the Tax consequences of the Exchange to such FREGAT Owner.&quot;  Don&#039;t come back later and try to claim that the tax consequence was unforeseen and therefore the contract unenforceable for some reason.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would use &#8220;in particular&#8221; if there is an identified risk and I don&#8217;t want any doubt that the other party is knowingly assuming the risk, particularly if I think they&#8217;re taking a flyer on it, e.g., your example &#8220;such counsel has carefully reviewed with it the terms and legal consequences of the Exchange and, in particular, the Tax consequences of the Exchange to such FREGAT Owner.&#8221;  Don&#8217;t come back later and try to claim that the tax consequence was unforeseen and therefore the contract unenforceable for some reason.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

