Incidentally, on the subject of jurisdictional differences, in South Africa we generally use the “clause 1.2.3″ method. Occasionally, one might read “subclause 1.2.3″.

Also, the word “section” is used in statues; the word “article” is used in international treaties and in companies’ articles of association, which are essentially company constitutions; and the word “paragraph” is used in pleadings, notices and affidavits.

I’d never use the term article 1 to refer to sections 1 through 3, and I’ve never seen anyone else do so. It would be confusing.

My referring to subparts of a section as “subsections” doesn’t mean that I propose that you use that term in a contract. In MSCD 3.73 I recommend that you refer to section 4(c).

And the sample you link to is an old one. Click here to see what the Word version of MSCD sample 3 (MSCD Enumeration Scheme, “Articles” Version) looks like.

Ken

If an Article is defined as a group of sections, then this term can be a useful tool even in smaller agreements. However, I fail to see why subsections are useful.
Referring to Article 1 (which contains Sections 1 to 3) is an efficient reference but referring to Section 8.1 subsection (a) is less efficient than simply referring to Section 8.1(a).

Out of interest, I took a look at one example you had on your site http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/one-column-v-two-column-091107.pdf.

For clarification, because I know how much you enjoy that phrase, would you refer to the first subpart of Section 4 as “Section 4(a)” or as “Section 4 subsection (a)?”

For details of the MSCD enumeration scheme, readers will have to consult the book. But for me, a key test is that I’ve been able to automate it using the Numbering Assistant.

Ken

Drafting and Negotiating Commercial Contracts uses the English convention of referring to clauses, but doesn’t discuss the convention. I agree that it doesn’t really matter which convention you use, as long as you are consistent in the agreement. The English tendency (does that phrase sound slightly dodgy?) is to refer to clauses (or sometimes sub-clauses) at several levels, eg 8, 8.1 (or 8, 8(1), depending on your preference) rather than the US practice of saying Article VIII, but Section 8.1, etc).

My guess is that these conventions (and also the numbering conventions for contracts) are based on practice in legislation and international treaties. For some reason one refers to clauses and sub-clauses of UK Parliamentary Bills, but sections and sub-sections of UK Acts of Parliament. Thus the famously controversial Clause 28 became Section 28 when it passed into legislation – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties uses the system of Articles and Sections. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

A style guide for European legislation indicates the use of Articles and paragraphs – see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/techleg/pdf/en.pdf. But I wouldn’t recommend Euro-legislation as a starting point for good drafting!

I am not familiar with the expression tabulation in the way you use it, and think of it only in relation to tables or perhaps tab stops. However, your comments on this point resonate with me, as I have my own numbering system for contracts, which combines (as I see it) the best of the 8.1, 8.1, 8.1.1 versus 8, 8(1), 8(1)(a) systems, but my system is not available as a standard Microsoft Word option (!) I tend to use 8, 8.1, 8.1.1 etc for whole sentences and then use (a), (b), (c) for incomplete sentences that need to be read in conjunction with an introductory phrase that appears before the (BrE) paragraph / (USE) clause.