If you’ve visited this blog at all regularly over the past couple of months, you’ll have noticed not one, not two, but three blog posts that mention John F. Coyle, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law. That’s because of two law-review articles John wrote, on governing-law provisions and jurisdiction provisions. I haven’t finished mining John’s articles … Read More
We all know that the phrase represents and warrants is pointless and confusing, to the point of being plain-old dumb. (What, you’re not aware of that? Then go read my 2015 law-review article.) In theory I’m open to rational discussion on the subject, but no one has been able to make a dent in my reasoning. But that doesn’t mean … Read More
(This is an updated version of a post I did last year.) On 4 November I’ll be doing a day-long “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar in London for UCL Faculty of Laws. (For more information, go here.) I can think of eight reasons why you might want to attend: English contract drafting is dysfunctional. Generally, the prose of contracts leaves a … Read More
In July my law-review article on efforts (aka endeavours) provisions was published. (PDF here.) It’s about as contrarian as the subject matter allows. I beat the tar out of the conventional wisdom that the U.S. dealmaking establishment still clutches like a moth-eaten teddy bear. And I discuss in gruesome detail the preposterous positions adopted by English courts and accepted by … Read More
Go here for my podcast with Alex Hamilton, CEO and founder of Radiant Law, the UK-based award-winning “NewLaw” firm that focuses on improving the contracting process for clients. As the blurb says: “Ken has long sought Alex’s advice on what’s wrong with contracts and how to fix it; this podcast is more of the same, but in public!”
The other day, while researching contract provisions that refer to reliance, I saw the following in a provision waiving jury trial (excuse the all caps; bold added): EACH PARTY HERETO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS BEEN INFORMED BY THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO THAT THIS SECTION 8(C) CONSTITUTES A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT UPON WHICH THEY ARE RELYING AND WILL RELY IN ENTERING INTO … Read More
Thanks to longtime undercover blog informant Steven H. Sholk (drat, I’ve blown his cover!), I’m pleased to bring to you today a recent opinion of the Connecticut federal district court, Tyll v. Stanley Black & Decker Life Insurance Program. It’s discussed in this blog post by the law firm McDermott Will & Emery, but go here for a PDF of … Read More
My seminar trips aren’t like vacation. They’re not for sightseeing—if I’m not careful, a trip can consist of various forms of transportation, time in a hotel, time in a meeting room, various forms of transportation taking me home, and not a whole lot else. And usually I don’t linger—I’m not big on solo tourism, and my wife Joanne has a … Read More
As I noted in this 2017 post, there’s something compelling about disputes over a comma. A tip from reader Martin Clausen alerted me to another dispute featuring a comma. It’s described in this National Post article about a recent case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Austin v. Bell Canada (PDF here). It involves a dispute over the rate … Read More
[Updated 26 April 2023: See also this 3 May 2021 blog post about litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving a consent-to-jurisdiction provision.] Recently I devoted this post to John F. Coyle’s article on governing-law provisions. I’ve now gotten my hands on his recent article Interpreting Forum Selection Clauses (here). (I call them “jurisdiction provisions.” More on that later.) … Read More
