I recently saw this tweet by @CherylStephens: Contract says "Company has the right to request" when it means "can require." Right? Otherwise, just says they can ask? — CherylStephens.com (@CherylStephens) September 12, 2015 Ah, I said to myself, may request! Categories-of-contract-language issue 24,773! So I popped some penicillin and waded into EDGAR. Here’s a taxonomy of may request. Restrictive Relative Clause … Read More
The ACC Docket has just published (here) my article Fixing Your Contracts: What Training in Contract Drafting Can and Can’t Do. My co-author is Chris Lemens, a longtime reader and commenter. I have no particular gloss to put on this article. If any thoughts come to mind, by all means put them in the comments.
For some kinds of contracts—mostly where there’s a disparity of bargaining power—some companies prefer using the first person (we, us, our) to refer to themselves and the second person (you, your) to refer to the other guy. Going that route has implications. For one thing, it wouldn’t make sense to use shall in such contracts. I wrote about that way … Read More
The fall seminar season starts soon, so I’m taking the liberty of reminding you of the following public “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminars outside of the US: Dubai, 18–19 October (moved from Qatar) Toronto, 21 October Toronto, 22 October (“Advanced ‘Drafting Clearer Contracts’: An Intensive Program in the Categories of Contract Language”) London, 2 November (and go here for feedback from participants … Read More
In this recent post I wrote about a Bryan Garner tweet on the subject of including but not limited to. Shortly after, Garner posted “LawProse Lesson #226” on the same subject. Since his post offers more detail than did his tweet, I thought I should check it out, but I found that it reflects his unhelpful approach to contract language. Let me … Read More
Remember without limiting the generality of the foregoing? (See MSCD 13.763–70 and this 2006 post.) Well, allow me to introduce you to its equally evil twin, in furtherance of the foregoing. They serve the same function, to the extent they can be said to perform any function. In fact, they’re sometimes conjoined: in furtherance of the foregoing and not in … Read More
Note use of hereby enter into in the following Pleistocene-era lead-in: NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby enter into this Agreement to set forth their mutual promises and understandings, and mutually acknowledge the receipt and sufficiency of valuable consideration in addition to the mutual promises, conditions and understandings set forth below. And note the same in the following concluding clause: IN … Read More
Keith Bishop—he of the California Corporate & Securities Law blog—was kind enough to tell me about this post, dealing with a dispute over the meaning of the phrase “within 30 days prior to” in the context of the time period for exercising an option. The court opinion in question is Wilson v. Gentile, 8 Cal. App. 4th 759 (1992) (here). Here’s how the … Read More
I have a mixed relationship with the law-school world. On the one hand, an increasing number of instructors use MSCD as a course text. On the other hand, people from law schools are among the most ardent defenders of traditional contract language that I have encountered. So I was interested to see this post on ContractsProf Blog by Nancy Kim, … Read More
Table 2 in MSDC chapter 3 displays an assortment of suboptimal ways to impose an obligation on a contract party that’s the subject of a sentence. I use shall, of course (as I explain in this article); the suboptimal variants include agrees to, undertakes to, and commits to. Well, I’m happy to announce that I’ve discovered another suboptimal variant, is bound to (and … Read More
