Month: February 2016

Invoking Provisions That Are “Intended to Survive Termination”

I’m no fan of saying in a contract that certain provisions survive termination. See MSCD 13.642 and this 2006 post. Heck, even the Delaware Chancery Court noticed that. But if simple survival isn’t enough, you can layer futility upon futility. At the suggestion of a reader, I dug up the following: Those provisions that by their nature are intended to … Read More

The Latest on My Book “The Structure of M&A Contracts”

Remember my M&A book? You know, The Structure of M&A Contracts? Yeah, it slips my mind too. Because it’s available only in a proprietary ebook format, and because buying it can be a hassle, it sometimes feels as if it was never published. But it turns out that people are in fact buying it, and reading it. Recently I heard from some … Read More

My New Article on Granting Language in Patent License Agreements

The January/February 2016 issue of Landslide, the magazine of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, contains my article Granting Language in Patent License Agreements: An Analysis of Usages. I recommend the PDF version, here, but there’s also the online version, here. (The PDF provided by Landslide was unsatisfactory, so the PDF is based on my manuscript. The only difference is … Read More

A Prototype of a New Definition of “Reasonable Efforts”

MSCD 8.56 suggests that you might want to use the phrase reasonable efforts as a defined term: Even though the phrase reasonable efforts doesn’t pose the same risk of confusion as best efforts, you might want to use it as a defined term. Doing so could assist a court and might help the parties better understand the implications of using reasonable efforts. And in … Read More

Another Comma Cautionary Tale

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you probably don’t need any further warnings about confusion caused by commas. Well, you’re getting one anyway. A reader told me about this post on the blog of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It’s about last fall’s Ninth Circuit opinion in Hamdan. It involves the language of a statute, not a contract, but … Read More

A Random Instance of Confusing Contract Language

While trawling through caselaw, I encountered Gingras v. Avery, 90 Conn. App. 585, 591, 878 A.2d 404, 408 (2005). It involved a fight over the following: The closing shall take place on or before sixty (60) days after subdivision approval; but in no event later than March 15, 2003. The developers of the property in question didn’t obtain subdivision approval but … Read More