On Minor Wisdom, Ray Ward listed this blog as one of his ten favorite law blogs. So did China Law Blog. It’s great to have people acknowledge my efforts in this manner. But apparently I now have to share the luuurve by naming my own ten favorites. I used to be a chronic non-joiner, but evidently blogging has turned me … Read More
Here’s what Garner’s Modern American Usage has to say about only: Only is perhaps the most frequently misplaced of all English words. Its best placement is precisely before the words intended to be limited. The more words separating only from its correct position, the more awkward the sentence; and such a separation can lead to ambiguities. … Yet the strong … Read More
The following constructions using party are commonplace: Acme is a party to a confidentiality agreement with Widgetco dated October 7, 2007. Acme and Widgetco are parties to a confidentiality agreement dated October 7, 2007. In the above examples, party is used as a noun. I suggest that in this context it would be preferable to use it as an adjective. … Read More
Reader Mike told me about IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2007). I’m delighted that he did, because it’s yet another case that I can point to in making the argument that to control your drafting you need to clearly distinguish one category of contract language from another. IpVenture owns and licenses patents on inventions relating … Read More
Yesterday was devoted to grading assignments submitted by students in my Penn Law contract-drafting course. One of them unintentionally made me aware of the formula Party X hereby grants Party Y the right to [verb]. It’s language of performance functioning as language of discretion. If a contract contains the provision Acme may sell the Assets, it’s appropriate for the reader … Read More
In grading student assignments, I found myself commenting on their use of unless the parties agree otherwise. I thought that I had already written something somewhere about this phrase, but evidently not. So here goes: As a general matter, the phrase unless the parties agree otherwise is redundant. The parties could agree to waive, amend, or delete any provision in … Read More
I’ve resisted the temptation to turn this blog into a drafting freak show. But what the heck—step right up! … In this article I offer plenty of mix-and-match efforts provisions, but the one immediately below nevertheless caught my eye as I was trawling through EDGAR today—three different efforts provisions in one! NNOG will use its best good faith reasonable efforts … Read More
I’ve occasionally worked on transactions involving parties who plan on engaging in discrete projects from time to time. Generally these transactions have been structured so that one contract governs unchanging aspects of the relationship—perhaps payment, delivery, dispute resolution, and plenty of other matters—and a separate contract governs each project and specifies what needs to be done, when, and for how … Read More
One of the participants at my recent Washington, D.C. seminar asked me about the notation “intentionally omitted.” I love being asked about stuff I hadn’t ever thought of writing about. “Intentionally omitted” is used in a contract to indicate when the text of an article, section, subsection, or enumerated clause has been omitted while leaving the enumeration of that unit … Read More
Reader Mike reminded me of the usage may but is not required to, as in the following provision: Indevus may, but is not required to, assist Esprit, at Esprit’s election, in Esprit’s efforts to seek and obtain FDA Approvals, subject to reimbursement of Indevus’ related costs and expenses. The word that comes to mind is “lame”—may expresses discretion, so is … Read More
