In this comment to a recent post, a reader outlined steps they’ve taken to make their contracts simpler and clearer. For purposes of this post, what’s of interest is that those steps include the following: … use “will” for our obligations and “shall” for the other party, … This is only the second time I’ve encountered the notion of using different verb … Read More
This is from an intercompany services agreement dated 3 July 2017 between General Electric Company and Baker Hughes that I happened upon in the SEC’s EDGAR system (PDF here): SECTION 10.16 Integrity. Each Party covenants that it is committed to unyielding integrity and will act in a manner consistent with the GE Integrity Guide for Suppliers, Contractors and Consultants, a … Read More
Recently I sent a consulting client a short explanation of how I handle statements of fact. Here it is, in case it’s of interest: I thought you might find it helpful if I summarized how I treat statements of fact. As a general matter, incorrect statements of fact give rise to a remedy. If the idea is that an incorrect … Read More
I’ve stated elsewhere (for example, in this 2014 article) the advantages of using shall to express an obligation imposed on the subject of a sentence, if the subject is a party to the contract. The primary advantage is that shall gives you an extra tool to work with. Instead of using will or must to express multiple meanings, you use … Read More
[Update: This 30 July 2017 post rendered this post redundant.] In this 2015 post I consider Nothing in this agreement gives X the right to [do something]. Now let’s consider Nothing in this agreement prevents X from [doing something]. We have to ask the age-old question: what category of contract language is this? Is it language of discretion? In other … Read More
Consider this sentence: After termination, Acme will have 60 days to return to Widgetco any Confidential Information in Acme’s possession. What category of contract language should that be? Presumably obligation: No later than 60 days after termination, Acme shall return to Widgetco any Confidential Information in Acme’s possession. How about this one: After termination, Acme will have 60 days to … Read More
I take issue with the wording of the standard clauses promulgated by the various arbitration institutions. I’ve written about shortcomings in the American Arbitration Association’s standard clause (see this 2010 article), but the same problems are on display in others. That’s not surprising—most drafting is poor, so why should arbitration clauses be any different? The standard clauses are all short, … Read More
A feature of my categories-of-contract-language framework is something I used to call “passive-type policies” but in the fourth edition of MSCD (forthcoming) call “buried-actor policies.” In this 2016 post I wrote about is subject to as an example of a buried-actor policy. Here’s another: is eligible for. Consider how it’s used in this sentence: The Employee is eligible for a … Read More
Regular readers will know that it has long been a hobby of mine to collect weird ways that drafters find to say may. But at some point, your cross the line and it’s no longer fun and games. Instead, you confront the horror. Friends, we’ve reached that point. Behold the following: The Grantee is hereby empowered to do any and … Read More
In MSCD 3.47, I say the following: For purposes of business contracts, as opposed to statutes, it’s unlikely that anyone could successfully argue that instead of expressing an obligation, a particular shall is “discretionary” and means may or should. Well, courtesy of @mrsalzwedel I learned of PacifiCorp v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp., No. CIV-04-0701 (E.D. Cal. 2 July 2004), an opinion … Read More
