Wearing my LegalSifter-advisor hat, I’ve been looking at what people try to cover in limitation-of-liability provisions—in other words, what they won’t be responsible for. Here’s what I’ve come up with in half an hour of rooting around on EDGAR: Consequential damages Special damages Direct damages General damages Indirect damages Incidental damages Punitive damages Exemplary damages Loss of profits Collateral damages … Read More
Thanks to Kim Reid, general counsel at Signalta Resources Limited, a private Calgary energy company, I belatedly learned of a troubling 2019 decision by Justice Fairburn of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Andros v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2019 ONCA 679, 2019 (Westlaw PDF here; the court’s PDF here). It involves interpretation of this termination provision in an employment agreement: … Read More
Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with Glenn West. When it comes to analysis of contract boilerplate with big-deal implications, no one comes close to Glenn. But Glenn has a mischievous side. He’ll sporadically send me stuff that he must know will irritate me; I imagine him hitting “Send” with a bit of a cackle. In the past … Read More
I was frittering time away on Twitter last night, when out of the blue this tweet from @IPDpdraughts came my way: Last week I saw an “affluxion of time” in a contract. — Mark Anderson (@IPDraughts) January 27, 2020 “Affluxion of time”? Some rooting around showed me that affluxion of time does indeed exist, although with only 25 instances on EDGAR, … Read More
Today I saw another way to make it clear that you want a party to waive the implied duty of good faith: Shipper, at its sole discretion and not subject to a reasonableness standard, may determine whether the goods may be salvaged, and if salvageable, the value of such salvage. For reasons I explain in MSCD and in this 2011 … Read More
In various ways, the word both comes in handy in contracts. It’s used to express universal quantification in contracts with two parties: No amendment to this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and executed by both parties hereto. And you can use both to make it clear whether you’re referring to one or both of a group of … Read More
Be on the lookout for the redundant only in language of obligation. Consider this: The Tenant may move furniture, fixtures, and equipment into and out of the Premises [only] during nonbusiness hours unless Landlord gives approval otherwise. [Prompted by D.C.’s comment I moved only, but that’s unrelated to the topic of this post.] Omitting only could result in confusion, because … Read More
The summer 2019 issue of The Business Lawyer—the law review published by the Business Law Section of the ABA—contains my article Interpreting and Drafting Efforts Provisions: From Unreason to Reason. Go here for a PDF. No one has ever offered an even halfway serious attempt to explain a distinction between different efforts (or endeavours) provisions, or lack of a distinction. … Read More
I noted with interest an article entitled “Including Without Limitation” (in this issue of The Transactional Lawyer), by Stephen L. Sepinuck of Gonzaga University School of Law. I’ll discuss later in this post the part about including without limitation. But let’s start with what is for me the more interesting part—the last two columns, in particular the following description of … Read More
Yes, similarly and similar are vague. Vague can lead to fights, so you have to be careful about vague. (See this 2018 post about a vagueness fight over similar.) But that’s not what post is about. Instead, it’s about two similarly glitches. Consider this use of similarly: In case of any reclassification or reorganization … , or in the case … Read More
