Yesterday’s post (here) concerned template process; today, let’s consider content. (Template content is a function of what you say and how you say it. Instead of constituting separate topics, they have a way of blending into each other—how you say something has a disconcerting way of changing what it means.) There are two kinds of template. There are templates for … Read More
In this post on his Commitment Matters blog, Tim Cummins notes that at an IACCM member meeting in Zurich, one of the big topics of discussion was “the extent to which templates cause rigidity.” Note that the discussion wasn’t whether templates cause rigidity: that’s not open to question. Although Tim sensibly says that “templates should not be a static imposition,” Word … Read More
I’m happy to report that on November 25–26, 2013, I’ll be giving in Abu Dhabi a two-day “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for Marcus Evans. (For marketing reasons they might want to call it something else.) Details to follow. It will be my first public seminar in the region, so I’m looking forward to it. I expect to head to Abu Dhabi … Read More
The June/July 2013 issue of The Advocate, published by the Idaho State Bar, contains my article It’s Time to Get Rid of the “Successors and Assigns” Provision. Go here for a copy of the article; go here for the entire issue. This article is a mash-up of three blog posts I’ve written on the subject over the years. My thanks … Read More
I recently saw in a contract the following provision specifying drafting conventions: Reference to any English legal term shall, in respect of any jurisdiction other than England, be deemed to include what most nearly approximates in that jurisdiction to the English legal term. The contract in question is governed by English law. It follows that if the contract uses, say, … Read More
Yesterday I gave in New Jersey, before a good crowd, my last “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for West LegalEdcenter for the first half of the year. I have a couple of other seminars coming up, notably one for a state government agency early next week, but things are winding down for the summer. As far as seminars go, it’s been … Read More
In this post on his Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Daniel Schwartz tells an odd story, one that he first saw in Wolters Kluwer’s Employment Law Daily (here). What Happened An employee of Chanel’s fashion division was terminated. As a condition to being paid severance, she was asked to sign a “separation and release agreement” that, among other things, stated that … Read More
You can find on ContractsProf Blog two reviews of the third edition of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting. Go here for a review by Daniel D. Barnhizer, professor at Michigan State University College of Law, and go here for a review by Irma S. Russell, dean and professor at the University of Montana School of Law. In this … Read More
Here’s what Garner’s Modern American Usage has to say about generally: generally has three basic meanings: (1) “disregarding insignificant exceptions” <the quality of the acting is generally very high>; (2) “in many ways” <he was the most generally qualified applicant>; and (3) “usually” <he generally leaves the office at five o’clock>. In contracts, the word generally appears in standard phrases … Read More
The problem with the word usually isn’t just that it’s vague. Instead, it’s that it exhibits the free-floating vagueness that we previously encountered in substantially (see this 2011 post)—vagueness uncoupled from a reasonable-person standard. How often does something have to occur for it to occur usually? Who knows. I’m not comfortable with that level of vagueness. A suitable fix might … Read More
