Recently someone from the plain-English camp chided me for disagreeing with “the more progressive view” that one should avoid shall in contract drafting. Such potshots are, I suppose, inevitable if you publish enough, and they’re best ignored. But what good is a blog if one can’t occasionally use it to set matters straight? So here goes: My critic says, in … Read More
Last week I held an all-day seminar for a group of lawyers from a big company. A good time was had by all—they asked plenty of questions and apparently came away thinking that my approach had real merit. Given that I recently posted an item suggesting how law-firm associates might navigate obstacles to change in drafting, this seminar got me … Read More
Today, for the heck of it, I investigated the difference between guaranty and guarantee. Here’s what Bryan Garner says in A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1995): The distinction in BrE once was that the former [guarantee] is the verb, the latter [guaranty] the noun. Yet guarantee is now commonly used as both n. & v.t. in both AmE and … Read More
The New York Law Journal recently published my article “Copyright and the Contract Drafter.” (Click here for the text of the article.) If the subject matter sounds familiar, that’s probably because this article consists of a mash-up of my two blog items on the subject. (Here and here.) This is the first time I’ve recycled something I’ve written for my … Read More
A couple of items caught my eye in the most recent issue of “Business Law Today.” One is an article by Susan J. Irion entitled “The New Classroom—Learning How to Draft Contracts in the Real World.” It discusses how law firms are using training in contract drafting to sharpen the skills of their business lawyers, and how law schools are … Read More
MSCD contains a section on overuse of initial capitals (13.28–34). Here’s what I say in MSCD 13.30 regarding titles: Drafters invariably use initial capitals when referring to officer titles (The certificate must be signed by the President of Acme), but authorities on general English usage recommend that one only do so when the title is followed by a name (President … Read More
Earlier this year, I published an article suggesting why law firms might want to think about bringing in an outside speaker—presumably moi!—to speak about contract drafting. (Go here for a copy of that article.) But when I speak at law firms, I make a point of discussing some potential obstacles to associates’ changing the way they draft. This issue is … Read More
[Update June 17, 2013: Go here for the June 15, 2013 post about my article It’s Time to Get Rid of the “Successors and Assigns” Provision.] [Update April 12, 2013: For more recent posts about the “successors and assigns” provision, see “The ‘Successors and Assigns’ and Successor Liability” (here) and “The Illinois Appellate Court’s Problematic Take on the Traditional Recital of Consideration and ‘Successors … Read More
Last Thursday I taught my first class of the new semester. It prompted the following unconnected thoughts. *** I was reminded how pleased I am to be teaching at Penn Law. Why? Because the facilities are excellent and the students are smart and eager to learn. I went to Penn Law. When I graduated, I ever expected to return, let … Read More
Form and substance? I don’t think so. In contracts, the phrase is used exclusively in references to documents to be delivered, as in an opinion of counsel in form and substance satisfactory to the Buyer. As with most “doublets,” the suspicion is that it mainly serves to add a rhetorical flourish, an easy gravitas. On closer examination, that turns out … Read More
