A friend of the blog who enjoys stirring the pot sent me a link to this newsletter produced by the law firm Mayer Brown. When it comes to scholarship, either you’re a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants, or you’re just a dwarf. By that standard, we got us a couple of not-on-shoulders-of-giants dwarfs in the form of the … Read More
Last week I saw this tweet by @Torcherama: I review contracts in my day job and as a volunteer board member. I get the need for legal language – to a point. But, come on. Appurtenant? Don't make me look up words on top of having to read long, complex sentences. It means "belonging to". Lawyers, do better. #PlainLanguage — … Read More
On 23 October I’m doing a “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar in Toronto with my longtime partner Osgoode Professional Development. I’ve done more seminars in Toronto than anywhere else, for more than 2,000 participants, and I’m looking forward to returning. And on 24 October I’m doing a half-day “Advanced” seminar devoted “the categories of contract language”—how to use verb structures to … Read More
Readers of this blog will be familiar with the ever-raffish Alex Hamilton, but I haven’t had occasion to mention his UK-based business, Radiant Law, which describes itself as “a law firm leading the way in optimising how large companies create, negotiate and manage their commercial contracts.” I’m doing so now because two items on their website caught my eye recently. … Read More
Before I published my post The Post-Truth Mindset and “Endeavours” Provisions (here), I ran a draft by one of my English readers. I found what he had to say particularly eloquent, so here it is, with my response. I welcome you to chime in. You’re asking me to guess UK audience reaction, right? If you carry on doing the same thing … Read More
The above cartoon, by @MartinShovel, caught my eye. I won’t claim to know whether we’re dealing with cause or effect, but a toxin coursing through civic life in both the United States and the United Kingdom is the “post-truth” notion that all that’s required to make our point of view valid is that we believe it. There’s nothing new about … Read More
I keep my eye open for signs that MSCD-compliant language is seeping into contracts. For example, last week while rooting around on Edgar, I noticed a contract that uses my force majeure language. (Go here for my force majeure language.) But if I were looking for A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting to quickly result in sweeping change, I’d … Read More
I have a standing offer: if you send me one of your templates, I’ll tell you how I’d fix it. One of my seminar customers took me up on my offer. I thought you might find my response of interest, so here it is, lightly redacted: When assessing a contract, I consider five factors: what the contract says, how it … Read More
I’ll be in London in November. In addition to doing a “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar on 5 November for my friends at UCL Faculty of Laws (here), I’ll be speaking on 1–2 November at The Legal English Event. I’m looking forward to the The Legal English Event, so I noticed this tweet: What does indemnify mean? What does warrant mean? … Read More
While rooting around on Edgar, as is my wont, I came across the following: You see it? Bang in the middle? “HABENDUM”! I know I don’t get out much, but I’d never seen habendum before. Here’s what Black’s Law Dictionary has to say: habendum clause (hə-ben-dəm) (1829) 1. The part of an instrument, such as a deed or will, that defines the extent of … Read More
