Blog

Referring to Trademarks

15 June 2006 by Ken Adams

I’ve spent a fair amount of time recently working on commercial agreements, and I’ve noticed that some companies require that their registered trademarks be stated in all capital letters, with the registration symbol “®” appended, whenever the trademarks are referred to in a contract. When reading a contract that refers repeatedly to, say, “FLEXORBALIN®” (I made that up), I find … Read More

The Concept of “Tested” Contract Language

8 June 201312 June 2006 by Ken Adams

In the past ten days, I have twice had people mention to me, in the course of conversation, the notion of “tested” contract language. The idea is that while contract prose could certainly be improved, changing it would be risky—traditional contract language has been litigated, or “tested,” and so has a clearly established meaning (is “settled”). This argument has long … Read More

“Curly” and “Straight” Quotation Marks

17 January 20178 June 2006 by Ken Adams

I’ve been filling some gaps in my knowledge of Microsoft Word, and while browsing Word’s online “Help” database recently I was reminded of one of my favorite microtopics—“curly” and “straight” quotation marks and the role they play when you review contracts drafted by the other side to a transaction. In a serif typeface such as Times New Roman, curly quotation … Read More

“Notice” or “Prior Notice”?

5 June 20065 June 2006 by Ken Adams

Last February, Wayne Schiess, Director of Legal Writing at the University of Texas School of Law, asked me whether I had any views on a question that he had posed in his blog: Is there a difference between giving notice and giving prior notice? At the time my home office was draped in drop cloths, so my response was perfunctory … Read More

The Contract Drafter as Copyright Violator

19 June 20131 June 2006 by Ken Adams

[Update: Go here for my article on this topic.] A forthcoming Missouri Law Review article by Davida Isaacs—it was featured in a recent item on the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog—discusses whether one could bring a claim for copyright infringement based on unauthorized copying of litigation documents. This article was also mentioned in an item by Gordon Smith on Conglomerate … Read More

Recitals of Consideration Under Canadian Law

31 May 2006 by Ken Adams

In MSCD (¶¶ 2.64–71) and a Business Law Today article on the subject, I recommend strongly that drafters dispense with the traditional recital of consideration. The traditional recital of consideration is the consideration language that clogs the lead-in to the body of the contract in a majority of contracts. The language varies, but here’s an example of a lead-in containing … Read More

“Stockholder” or “Shareholder”?

9 October 200926 May 2006 by Ken Adams

Sometimes the distinctions that contract drafters are most vehement about are those that happen to be spurious. Consider, for example, the pointless debate over whether to use between or among in the introductory clause. (See MSCD ¶ 2.21.) It’s similarly unnecessary to make a fetish of using stockholder rather than shareholder—in contracts and elsewhere—when the corporation in question was formed under Delaware law.

“Time is of the Essence”

26 July 201623 May 2006 by Ken Adams

I’m fond of invoking two overarching rules of drafting—“be consistent” and “use standard English.” I periodically mull adding a third. Possible candidates come and go, but a current favorite is “say what you mean.” In other words, don’t use stock phrases in the hope that a court will construe them in the way you intended. Instead, address issues head-on. A … Read More

Welcome!

29 May 200623 May 2006 by Ken Adams

Welcome to my new blog. And more generally, welcome to my new web site. They mark the beginning of a new adventure: Over the past several years, I’ve been devoting an increasing proportion of my time and energy to all things contract drafting. Now I’ve taken the final step and turned this engrossing sideline into my livelihood. As for the … Read More

The voice that matters.