Archive for March, 2010
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010
Once you’re attuned to my framework of “categories of contract language,” as laid out in chapter 2 of MSCD, you’ll see its implications at every turn. A big part of my recent article on the AAA standard arbitration clause (pdf here) was a discussion of categories of contract language. The boilerplate governing how contracts are [...]
Posted in Categories of Contract Language | 8 Comments »
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
In March 2009 I did this Q&A with Kingsley Martin, developer of KIIAC, a software for creating templates and clause libraries for use in drafting contracts. I continue to think that KIIAC is invaluable for anyone looking to create a new template from a large group of comparable precedent contracts, so it was with interest that [...]
Posted in Process | 15 Comments »
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
I’ll be in Calgary the week of April 26, in part for my “Drafting Clearer Contracts” public seminar for Osgoode Professional Development. (Click here for more information about that.) But what’s currently on my mind is that I’m free on Wednesday, April 28, until mid-afternoon. Hmm, time for a 3-hour or 4.5-hour seminar, methinks. If [...]
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
I’ve been remiss about asking my in-house-seminar clients for testimonials, and I resolved to fix that. Last week I was in Houston, and I’m pleased to have received the following testimonials (my thanks to Lori and Tim): Ken Adams has continually presented a great “Drafting Clearer Contracts” training program for our associates. His sessions are [...]
Posted in Seminars | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
Here’s yet another cautionary tale. This article on Lexology by Doug Batey of Stoel Rives LLP considers a recent Idaho Supreme Court opinion addressing a dispute over a fee-shifting provision in a limited-liability-company operating agreement. Here’s the contract provision at issue: In any action or proceeding brought to enforce any provision of this Agreement, or where any [...]
Posted in Select Provisions | No Comments »
Monday, March 29th, 2010
As a follow-up to this recent post, let me tell you about another opinion featuring a dispute over a jurisdiction provision. (My thanks to the indefatigable Steven H. Sholk for the lead.) The case is D.B. Zwirn & Co. v. Dittman, No. 09 Civ. 10498 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 23, 2010) (click here to go to a [...]
Posted in Select Provisions | 8 Comments »
Thursday, March 25th, 2010
Winning hearts and minds one contracts person at a time is a noble undertaking, but things certainly would go faster if I could convert entire organizations. For any organization looking to put its contract process on a more efficient footing, the first step would be to adopt a rigorous house style. Compiling a dozen pages or [...]
Posted in Process | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
I noticed that in their current “Question of the Week,” the ABA Journal is asking who is better equipped to promote change, law firms or their clients. I won’t attempt to answer that. But I’ll note that although most of the chatter on change in the legal profession seems to assume that clients will be [...]
Posted in Process | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
In the course of telling someone in Canada where they could buy my book, I visited the MSCD page on Amazon.ca, Amazon’s Canada storefront. In addition to noticing that Amazon.ca doesn’t itself sell the book (buy it instead from Amazon.com), I saw that one “Mary M.” had recently posted a review. It’s positive, but it [...]
Posted in Odds and Ends | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010
The other day while reading in the Atlantic Monthy “A Conversation with Jules Feiffer,” the great cartoonist, the following Feiffer observation caught my eye: Amidst all the insecurity, and the ambition, and determination, there are two things always at work. One is self doubt, and the other is arrogance. And they work hand in hand. [...]
Posted in Odds and Ends | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010
A particularly prevalent usage is terms and conditions (and the shorthand T&Cs). Heck, it even surfaces in the everyday world—I’ve been known to throw a slipper at the TV when, at the end of a car ad, some voiceover guy drones on about how “terms, conditions, and limitations apply.” You can always do better than [...]
Posted in Select Usages | 4 Comments »
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010
Contrary to reputation, I’m not just a dry-as-dust, express-the-meaning-of-the-parties guy. I have a sensitive, truth-and-beauty side too. And to demonstrate that, I now bring you—cue tasteful music—the first AdamsDrafting art exhibit! It showcases the work of Russell Christian, a talented illustrator. And it was made possible by that noted patron of the arts, Business Integrity, [...]
Posted in Odds and Ends | 5 Comments »
Monday, March 15th, 2010
I generally explain the concept of ambiguity by saying that if reasonable people read a given contract provision and derive different meanings from it, that provision is ambiguous. But that doesn’t quite capture the problem that alternative meanings pose for the contract drafter. It’s not only the reasonable reader that you’re worried about. Instead, you’re [...]
Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
I launched this site in 2006, and recently it’s been showing its age. That’s not entirely due to sloth on my part, as getting anything adjusted had become a protracted annoyance. So recently I engaged web designer Tom Leadbetter, and here’s what we did: The left-hand column is wider, to take into account that people have been [...]
Posted in News | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
I’m attuned to the particular challenges facing anyone who isn’t a native English speaker and is required to draft or negotiate contracts in English. Indeed, my site contains this note on the subject. I was recently reminded of this issue in a number of ways. First, I exchanged emails with a reader in Asia. Here’s [...]
Posted in Odds and Ends | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
Today’s issue of the New York Law Journal contains my article “The AAA Standard Arbitration Clause: Room for Improvement.” Click here to go to a pdf copy. (It’s also available here if you subscribe to the New York Law Journal.) It was fun to write, and here’s why: I got to revisit a topic, arising out [...]
Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
In this May 2007 blog post I mentioned the dispute between Crusader Entertainment and schlockmeister Clive Cussler. In this post, the ContractsProf Blog provides the latest installment in this gripping saga—an opinion by a California appellate court. Here’s the bit that caught my eye: On the key issue in the appeal, the court found that [...]
Posted in Select Provisions | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
My recent post on stand-alone purchase orders prompted a related thought: When you issue a stand-alone purchase order (in other words, one not issued under a master contract), you could incorporate the general terms (in other words, everything that doesn’t relate to deal-specific matters such as product and price) in different ways. You could include [...]
Posted in Select Provisions | 1 Comment »
Friday, March 5th, 2010
You sometimes see a contract that has a paragraph entitled “Acknowledgement” added at the end, after the party signatures. For example, a search on the SEC’s EDGAR system quickly retrieved this document, a “forebearance agreement and amendment to indenture” between Gulfstream International Group, Inc. and Shelter Island Opportunity Fund, LLC. Here’s what came after their [...]
Posted in Front and Back of the Contract | 5 Comments »
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010
I received the following inquiry from a reader: As you know, goods or services can be purchased by means of purchase orders issued under a master contract or by POs that aren’t issued under a master contract—I’ll refer to the latter as “stand-alone” POs. They can be issued for one-off purchases or on a regular [...]
Posted in Select Provisions | 8 Comments »
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
After chewing over the comments to this post on excluding consequential damages, I’m left with the following thoughts: I remain of the view that putting a cap on damages is the simplest and least contentious way to limit damages. And it can make excluding certain kinds of damages less relevant, or even entirely irrelevant. Whether [...]
Posted in Select Provisions | No Comments »