There’s no end to the weirdness that drafters dream up. Evidently, it’s not enough that we have a choice between hereby indemnifies and shall indemnify (see this 2006 blog post). Recently I saw an additional variant, shall indemnify and keep indemnified. It appears in hundreds of contracts on the SEC’s EDGAR system. It’s analogous to shall inflate the balloon and keep … Read More
The answer to the question in the title is obviously, “What the … !” But asking that question provides me with another stick with which to beat the notion, expressed in English caselaw (see this post) and newsletters put out by English law firms, that all reasonable endeavours represents a more exacting standard than does reasonable endeavours. In terms of semantics, … Read More
Yesterday’s “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for the Utah State Bar included something new and different—an hour on professionalism and ethics. Legal ethics can be a narrow topic, but with the addition of “professionalism,” I allowed myself to expand the discussion to address different ways one can create problems for oneself in the contract process by being sneaky and the bad things … Read More
Today I did a “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for the Utah State Bar. As with last year’s seminar in Boise for the Idaho State Bar (see this blog post), it was sold out. And it appears that a worthwhile time was had by, if not all, then at least those with whom I spoke. One of those in attendance was Mark J. … Read More
I just used in this post a phrase I coined half an hour ago: “negotiation theater.” It refers to the time that lawyers waste negotiating lawyers-only contract deal points that have no basis in reality. Some examples: Whether to neutralize “double materiality” (see this 2013 blog post). Whether to use reasonable efforts or best efforts. Or commercially reasonable efforts. Or reasonable … Read More
OK, so we’re all agreed that best efforts promises more than it can deliver—to avoid confusion and avoid wasting time in negotiation theater, use just reasonable efforts. You don’t agree? Oh, I think you’ve come to the wrong place; go here for the Flat Earth Society. Relax! I’m joking. To show you that I feel your pain, I’ll try once … Read More
Ah, what would life be without disputes over and and or! Here’s a fresh one (thanks to cousin Joshua Stein for alerting me) that arose in connection with a series of transactions that freed Caesars Entertainment from having to guarantee a portion of the $18 billion of debt of its subsidiary Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. As a result, investors lost something like $450 million on … Read More
Recently, I’d been feeling restless. Irritable. Prone to laughing jags and fits of tears. I knew that I needed the wisdom of one graced with insight. So I set off a quest, and in the Karakoram, on a ledge high on Gasherbrum IV, I found him, sitting cross-legged in a loin cloth, making origami out of glossy law-firm marketing brochures. … Read More
Last week I was involved in the following exchange on Twitter with @ClearLanguage and @mrsalzwedel regarding—of course—shall: @KonciseD @500wordlawyer @ClearLanguage: I read many contracts where the lawyer uses shall in 3-6 senses. Perhaps efficiency = just drop it? — Matthew Salzwedel (@mrsalzwedel) May 8, 2014 I replied to Matthew that I’d answer his question on my blog, so here we … Read More
A blog post by Tim Cummins of IACCM entitled “Contract Drafting, Communications & Risk” (here) met with quite a bit of approval on Twitter. So I looked at it, then looked at it again. Tim, I hope you’ll permit me some comments from the peanut gallery. Of course I agree entirely with the premise of Tim’s post: Contracts that fail to … Read More
