Here’s what Garner’s Modern American Usage has to say about generally: generally has three basic meanings: (1) “disregarding insignificant exceptions” <the quality of the acting is generally very high>; (2) “in many ways” <he was the most generally qualified applicant>; and (3) “usually” <he generally leaves the office at five o’clock>. In contracts, the word generally appears in standard phrases … Read More
The problem with the word usually isn’t just that it’s vague. Instead, it’s that it exhibits the free-floating vagueness that we previously encountered in substantially (see this 2011 post)—vagueness uncoupled from a reasonable-person standard. How often does something have to occur for it to occur usually? Who knows. I’m not comfortable with that level of vagueness. A suitable fix might … Read More
At last Friday’s CLE session in Boise, I sat in on a lunchtime presentation by Ken Howell, of the law firm Hawley Troxell, on recent actions by the Idaho legislature that have a bearing on business. Obviously, I wasn’t in the target audience, but Ken caught my attention when he mentioned how, in connection with some tax legislation, the legislature … Read More
The other day @bradykrissesq posed the following question on Twitter: What is the legal significance of a contract requirement to “do all things”? — Brady Kriss (@bradykrissesq) April 30, 2013 Although it’s not the most crucial drafting issue, Brady, this one’s for you … Here are three instances of use of thing or things in contracts on EDGAR: … each … Read More
The earnest cliché ready, willing, and able occurred in 102 contracts filed on the SEC’s EDGAR system in the past year. That’s not a whole lot, but it’s not nothing either. Here are some examples: Borrower and Bank recognize and agree that the Origination Fee … is a material inducement for Bank to make the Loan and for having Bank ready, willing … Read More
Last month the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Petition of S.G., 828 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2013) (PDF copy here). This opinion doesn’t involve a contract dispute. Instead, what caught my eye is what is, to my mind, a misunderstanding on the part of the judge writing the concurring opinion. Why bother pointing it out? Because it’s … Read More
Utmost? WTF! Here are some examples of use of utmost in contracts on EDGAR: … provided that the party so affected shall use its best efforts to avoid or remove the cause(s) of non-performance and observance with utmost dispatch. A Seller’s agent or subagent has the following affirmative obligations: (1) To the Seller. A fiduciary duty of utmost care, integrity, honesty, and loyalty in … Read More
I noted with interest Neal Goldfarb’s recent post on LAWnLinguistics about an amicus brief that he filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. His brief concerns the word because, and here’s the gist of the issue addressed: In particular, does the use of the word because in these provisions require the plaintiff to prove that the prohibited factor was what’s known in the … Read More
MSCD 17.16 deals with the phrase to the extent that. It makes the simple point that although to the extent that is appropriate when the degree to which a provision applies depends on some variable, drafters often use to the extent that when if would be more appropriate. Here are three examples: To the extent that [read If] an Award is intended … Read More
In contracts, use of the word suffer comes in two flavors, silly and annoying. Silly First, silly—the intransitive use of suffer. When use to mean “to submit to or be forced to endure,” suffer is unobjectionable: I suffer from chronic insomnia. But it’s a bit much when used in contracts to mean “undergo, experience.” Oh, how Acme suffers! Usually the … Read More
