Ken Adams

English Website “The Lawyer” Has My Article on Contract Drafting and Young Lawyers

You can now find on the English website “The Lawyer” my squib The problem with contract drafting and what young lawyers can do about it. It speaks for itself. (Free registration required.) I’ve been vocal over the past couple of years in suggesting that the English legal profession has bollixed important aspects of contract interpretation. So far, that has elicited some sputtering … Read More

Changing Contract Legalese: My Response to Keith Lee

Keith Lee is the lawyer behind the blog Associate’s Mind. He’s also author of The Marble and the Sculptor, a book for law students, but that’s beside the point, because what’s on my mind is his most recent blog post. It’s entitled “Should Lawyers Ditch Legalese?” It mentions my recent Beyoncé-inspired post, but I stuck around to read his recommendations on … Read More

Another Syntactic-Ambiguity Cautionary Tale (As If We Really Needed One): The Supreme Court’s Opinion in Lockhart

Here we go again. You might recall that syntactic ambiguity involves uncertainty over what part of a sentence a phrase modifies, or what part of a phrase a word modifies. If you want a whole bunch of examples of syntactic ambiguity, just search for “syntactic” on this blog. Well, the most recent Supreme Court opinion, Lockhart v. U.S. (opinion PDF … Read More

What’s Beyoncé Got to Do with Contract Drafting?

Today I put this on Twitter: Y'all haters corny with that "tested language" messCopy-pasters, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh — Ken Adams (@AdamsDrafting) February 29, 2016 It’s one of my more obscure tweets, so allow me to explain: I was channeling Beyoncé. Or more specifically, the first two lines of her new song “Formation.” I haven’t paid much attention … Read More

“Affirmatively” and “Affirmative”

Friends, I’m here to tell you that at least in contracts, affirmatively blows major chunks. It’s redolent of bureaucratic, jargony pseudoassertiveness. In each of the following examples, obtained by dynamite fishing in the EDGAR lagoon, affirmatively is, uh, affirmatively redundant: … an individual who becomes a Covered Employee shall be automatically enrolled in the Plan, and will make Participant Contributions at … Read More

Position of “The Following” in Introductory Text Preceding a Set of Enumerated Clauses

The basic unit of contract prose is, surprise surprise, the sentence. One issue of contract layout is that of aggregation—how do you group sentences into sections and, if necessary, articles? The other is that of division—when is it appropriate to break up a sentence? Division involves enumerated clauses. A contract sentence might consist of introductory text and a series of parallel elements. It might make … Read More

Reminder: “Drafting Clearer Contracts” Seminars in Geneva in April

And now, a word from our sponsor: On 5 April and 7 April, I will be giving “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminars in Geneva, Switzerland, at the offices of the international law firm Orrick. For more information, go here. To register, go here. These seminars will be particularly intime, as the room we’ll be using holds only a dozen people. And that room is … Read More

“Provisions”

The word provision is used to describe something in a contract, but without being specific—I don’t think you can say it refers to a sentence or to a section. You can use provision in a contract, usually in the plural. Here are two examples: any additional shares of Common Stock issued and issuable in connection with any anti-dilution provisions in … Read More

A Proponent of “Tested” Contract Language

Today, thanks to a tweet by @360venturelaw, I stumbled upon a blog post entitled “Famous Last Words: ‘The Shorter the Better.’” It’s by Mike Stanczyk, a corporate attorney based in Syracuse, New York. It’s a sensible post, but Mike wraps it up with the following point: In closing I will say that when possible I prefer and do use “plain English” agreements. However, its … Read More

“No Implied Licenses”? No Thanks

Consider the following: No Implied Licenses. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, neither Party grants any license under its intellectual property rights to the other Party. First, let consider what an implied license is. Here’s what Melvin F. Jager, Licensing Law Handbook § 1:25 (2015) has to say (citation omitted): Under this implied license theory, the unrestricted sale of a patented … Read More