This week I’ve had the distinct privilege of doing two back-to-back day-long “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminars at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, the prominent Netherlands law firm. (I just wrapped up the second seminar.) In that regard, consider the following: De Brauw’s very handsome auditorium seats one hundred (see the photo below), but demand for the seminars exceeded the space available. … Read More
Last week I noticed this tweet by @BlakeReagan2: https://twitter.com/BlakeReagan2/status/472438086580707328 It has been a while since I’ve used contract as a defined term, so I grabbed the following examples at random from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR system: “Contract” means all legally enforceable contracts, agreements, understandings, arrangements and commitments, whether written or oral, excluding Purchase Orders. “Contract” means any … Read More
At yesterday’s “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar in Aarhus, Denmark, for MHI Vestas Offshore Wind, one of the participants asked me whether I was familiar with the convention that has internal cross-references stated in initial capitals (Section 5.4) and cross-references to other contracts stated in all-lowercase letters (section 3.2 of the Distribution Agreement). I said I was unfamiliar with that convention, but that it … Read More
I’m now cooling my heels in Copenhagen. I just came from Aarhus, Denmark. Let me tell you about that part of my trip. Tuesday, May 26 I arrived in Aarhus after an overnight flight via Amsterdam and Copenhagen. I went there to give an in-house “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for MHI Vestas Offshore Wind, a manufacturer of wind turbine generators. … Read More
There’s no end to the weirdness that drafters dream up. Evidently, it’s not enough that we have a choice between hereby indemnifies and shall indemnify (see this 2006 blog post). Recently I saw an additional variant, shall indemnify and keep indemnified. It appears in hundreds of contracts on the SEC’s EDGAR system. It’s analogous to shall inflate the balloon and keep … Read More
The answer to the question in the title is obviously, “What the … !” But asking that question provides me with another stick with which to beat the notion, expressed in English caselaw (see this post) and newsletters put out by English law firms, that all reasonable endeavours represents a more exacting standard than does reasonable endeavours. In terms of semantics, … Read More
Yesterday’s “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for the Utah State Bar included something new and different—an hour on professionalism and ethics. Legal ethics can be a narrow topic, but with the addition of “professionalism,” I allowed myself to expand the discussion to address different ways one can create problems for oneself in the contract process by being sneaky and the bad things … Read More
Today I did a “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar for the Utah State Bar. As with last year’s seminar in Boise for the Idaho State Bar (see this blog post), it was sold out. And it appears that a worthwhile time was had by, if not all, then at least those with whom I spoke. One of those in attendance was Mark J. … Read More
I just used in this post a phrase I coined half an hour ago: “negotiation theater.” It refers to the time that lawyers waste negotiating lawyers-only contract deal points that have no basis in reality. Some examples: Whether to neutralize “double materiality” (see this 2013 blog post). Whether to use reasonable efforts or best efforts. Or commercially reasonable efforts. Or reasonable … Read More
OK, so we’re all agreed that best efforts promises more than it can deliver—to avoid confusion and avoid wasting time in negotiation theater, use just reasonable efforts. You don’t agree? Oh, I think you’ve come to the wrong place; go here for the Flat Earth Society. Relax! I’m joking. To show you that I feel your pain, I’ll try once … Read More
