[Updated 13 June 2017: Prompted by this more recent post, I’ve had a change of heart. I think this should be language of declaration: The parties acknowledge that this agreement does not address the law that governs disputes arising out of this agreement or the subject matter of this agreement. Why? Because it doesn’t really make sense to state as a … Read More
Behold the following extracts from the outhouse EDGAR, each using the word joinder: … the Company shall cause each such Permitted Subsidiary to become party to the Guaranty by executing a joinder to the Guaranty reasonably satisfactory in form and substance to the Required Holders. On November 11, 2016, the Board authorized this Agreement , contingent upon its execution and … Read More
[Overhauled 8:40 p.m. EST on 12 November 2016, thanks to input from Neal Whitman on Twitter.] It’s time to pick over the carcass of the “Magic Circle” extract that I dissect in this post. Consider the following with respect to the word Closing in that extract and in my version of it: The original version: … under a new contract of … Read More
In the course of discussions in London, it became clear to me that I have few supporters in suggesting that drawing a distinction between endeavours standards—the US equivalent is efforts—is an invitation to confusion. The prevailing view is that of course best endeavours imposes a more exacting standard than does reasonable endeavours. I’m happily sticking to my guns, for two reasons. … Read More
One can never have enough on efforts, it seems. Here are three notes on efforts. *** First, thanks to a reader tip I learned of this post on Sheppard Mullin’s Corporate & Securities Law Blog, entitled What Are “Commercially Reasonable Efforts” in M&A Transactions? Some observations. The post says as follows: New York courts have suggested that when parties fail to … Read More
The other day I saw the following tweet, mentioning a post by Ruth Gámez and Fernando Cuñado: Diccionario de #ingles jurídico: «business day» vs. «non-business day» I @traduccionjurid https://t.co/r31BKQaDOV — Leon Hunter SLU (@LeonHunterSL) October 13, 2016 I realized in quick succession that (1) I hadn’t encountered the term non-business day and (2) it’s massively lame. So is non-working day. A … Read More
The phrase fails to (and its variants) is utterly standard in contracts, but you could always use instead does not (and its variants). Some grubby examples from EDGAR: The Indemnifying Party shall not be relieved of its obligations to indemnify the Indemnified Party with respect to such claim if the Indemnified Party fails to [read does not] timely deliver the Indemnity … Read More
The word directly comes in handy if you want to say in a contract that a party is allowed to do something, or is prohibited from doing something, directly or indirectly. Some examples from the Berkeley Pit that is EDGAR: Executive shall not directly or indirectly render any services of a business, commercial, or professional nature to any other person … … Read More
This week I revisited my 2012 post on rethinking the “no assignment” provision (here). It reminded me that there’s a general point buried in that post. Here it is: It’s commonplace for contracts to contain something along the following lines: Neither party may assign this agreement without the consent of the other party. In Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate (Tina Stark … Read More
In everyday English, the phrase so long as means if. As in, You may go to the movies, so long as Juanita goes too. It’s used to convey that meaning in contracts too. I’m here to tell you that you should use if instead, as in the following examples that I caught in an EDGAR glue trap: During the Restricted … Read More
