Month: July 2017

Revisiting Absence of Prohibition

A benefit of this blog is that I get to try out new ideas. Often enough, I end up revisiting those ideas. That can make the original post out of date, but that’s a blogging fact of life. (I’m not disciplined enough to always put a link in the original post.) Here’s an example for you. In this post from … Read More

On Honesty in Commentary

In recent posts, I’ve critiqued an article (here) and suggested limitations in a product (here). (I pulled a third critical post, one in which I reviewed a book.) Writing the first of those posts prompted me to publish this item on LinkedIn. I jokingly describe it as a public-service announcement. (It’s been read so far by around 3,600 people; I never … Read More

London “Drafting Clearer Contracts” Seminar 6 November 2017

I’m delighted that on 6 November 2017 I’ll be doing another “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar in London with UCL Faculty of Laws. Go here for more information. Note the significant student discount! And go here for feedback from participants at one of my previous seminars for UCL Faculty of Laws. I think it’s safe to say that among commentators on … Read More

Wolters Kluwer’s “M&A Clause Analytics”

I noticed this post by Richard Tromans on a new Wolters Kluwer product called M&A Clause Analytics. Here’s some of what Richard says: In terms of what the system actually does, Wolters Kluwer explains that it has the ability to compare an entire document or single clause against the market standard and then provides practical guidance about those clauses and … Read More

“Clarity” Is More Than a Slogan: Thoughts on an Article Published by IACCM

I came across this article in the Contracting Excellence Journal, published by the International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM). It’s by Rob Waller, Helena Haapio, and Stefania Passera, and the title is Contracting Simplification: The Why and the How. I could hardly argue with the premise for the article. Traditional contract drafting doesn’t work? Check. Confusing contracts can lead … Read More

Don’t Vary Verb Structures Depending on the Party

In this comment to a recent post, a reader outlined steps they’ve taken to make their contracts simpler and clearer. For purposes of this post, what’s of interest is that those steps include the following: … use “will” for our obligations and “shall” for the other party, … This is only the second time I’ve encountered the notion of using different verb … Read More

Whether You Can Change Your Contract Templates Depends on Your Attitude

I’ve found that those in charge of contract templates at companies are experts at finding obstacles to changing their templates. I’ve heard all sorts of reasons why change is hard: “We don’t have time.” “The customers won’t like it.” “We’re all so used to the current templates.” “You don’t understand the business constraints.” And so on. Even when they opt … Read More

What Say You, Contracts People at Companies?

In a stream of posts over the past couple of months, I’ve been nagging companies about their contracts. It boils down to something like this: It’s likely your contracts are a mess. That matters. Do you have the time and expertise to fix the problem? What are you going to do? The response has pretty much been silence. I’ve been … Read More

Who Is Best Placed to Make Decisions About a Company’s Contracts?

Who is best placed to make decisions about a company’s contracts? I don’t know; I guess it depends. How about the general counsel? After all, they should have the broadest perspective, and they should be able to think long-term: How much longer does each deal take because our contracts are wordy and confusing? What’s the risk of our exposing ourselves … Read More

The Shortcomings in Traditional Contract Drafting Have Nothing to Do with Complexity

Yesterday someone suggested to me that the main problem with contracts is that they’re too complicated. That’s consistent with the message of an article that appeared in Legaltech News this week, entitled Are Law Firms Too Sophisticated for Their Own Good? (here). It’s also consistent with a recommendation I’ve heard over the years: lawyers should take pity on those who … Read More