In a recent email exchange, a corporate partner at one of the big law firms told me that he wasn’t sure how my “Language and Layout” seminar differs from the Practicing Law Institute’s day-long program on contract drafting. So when last week a flyer for that program—”Drafting Corporate Agreements 2009“—arrived in the mail, I made a point of checking it … Read More
Thinking about materiality-scrape provisions had me pondering idly what other contract provisions are known by nicknames. Only three came to mind—ipso facto clauses, anti-sandbagging provisions, and “garden leave” clauses. A lame effort by yours truly. There are doubtless plenty other such nicknames out there. I invite you, dear reader, to tell us any you can think of. The only rule is that … Read More
Wearing my “structure of M&A contracts” hat, this week I revisited a relatively recent addition to indemnification provisions in acquisition agreements—the “materiality scrape” provision. (What a charming moniker—it brings to mind scraping muck off the sole of one’s shoe.) In particular, I read a couple of useful articles, one by a team of lawyers at Goodwin Procter (click here for … Read More
Later this month I’ll be on two ABA panels on consecutive days. First, I’ll be on the panel for a November 20 ABA-CLE webcast entitled “Getting the Business Deal into the Contract.” It’s an encore performance of a panel discussion held at the ABA’s 2008 annual meeting. The other members of the panel are Tina Stark, executive director of the … Read More
With publication of the second edition of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, I’ve been taking stock. I roam the land giving public and in-house seminars. I teach at a great law school. And I get to explore and write pioneering stuff about a vital yet problematic activity—contract drafting. I love what I do, and I feel tremendously lucky … Read More
Longtime readers of this blog will be aware of my hostility towards the phrase represents and warrants (and representations and warranties). Over the weekend I was reminded that I don’t include in the MSCD discussion (starting at 12.285) a point I make in my seminars. Here it is: The only purpose that Acme represents and warrants serves is to indicate … Read More
Every so often someone says to me, in connection with MSCD, “I don’t always agree with you.” My ears prick up when I hear that. It suggests to me three possibilities: The speaker has spotted flaws in my analysis. The speaker misguidedly regards contract drafting as a craft, with the drafter being free to select at will from an array … Read More
If you’ve perused chapter 2 of MSCD (Categories of Contract Language), you’re aware that I have a mania for disciplined use of verbs in contracts. But I haven’t previously had occasion to discuss use of can and cannot; I’ll do so now. The word can is used to express physical or mental ability, as in he can open beer bottles … Read More
One topic we discuss at my “Language and Layout” seminars is when it’s appropriate to have signatories date their signatures, as opposed to relying on the date stated in the introductory clause. (This is discussed in MSCD at 1.16–21 and 4.3–7.) In a couple of recent seminars I was asked what one does if, in a contract that provides for dated … Read More
Recently the public radio stations I listen to concluded their fall fund drives. I thought I’d attempt something analogous and repeat a previous request: The ABA is in the process of collecting testimonials (otherwise known as “blurbs”) for the second edition of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting. If you find MSCD valuable and would like to help spread … Read More
