Selected Usages

“Appurtenant”

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

The Post-truth Mindset and “Endeavours” Provisions

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

“Indemnify” and Picking Your Battles Over Terminology

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

“Habendum”?

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

“Variation”? No Thanks

The language of contracts in English is basically the same the world over, but with local variations. In the course of my work for LegalSifter this week, I learned of one such variation—the English affinity for the word, uh, variation. Or more specifically, the combination amendment or variation. Actually, it’s not only the English who indulge in this: you see the … Read More

“Efforts” + “Endeavor” = WTF

I’ve seen more than my fair share of unfortunate drafting, but my work for LegalSifter has exposed me to a whole new level of stoopid. This post is on the LegalSifter blog. Go here to read the rest.

Eliminating Unforeseeability as a Requirement in Force Majeure Provisions

A reader introduced me to a recent opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals in TEC Olmos, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 01-16-00579-CV, 2018 WL 2437449, (Tex. App. 31 May 2018) (PDF here). It raises an interesting issue relating to force majeure provisions, one that has featured in other opinions. Rather than summarize the facts and the proceedings, I’ll cut … Read More

Why It Matters That I’ve Spotted Another “Efforts” Verb

Various verbs are used in efforts provisions. MSCD lists make, exercise, exert, expend, undertake, and use. Well, I’ve just spotted another one: exhaust. If you want to know why I bother paying attention to such oddities, stick around to the end of this post. But first, let’s explore exhaust. … Because this post relates to my work as advisor for LegalSifter, the AI document-review … Read More

Don’t Use a “Can Reasonably Demonstrate” Standard

Consider the following provision, which I encountered by chance: Confidential Information will not include information that the Recipient can reasonably demonstrate … was rightfully known by it or its Affiliates prior to the date it was disclosed by the Discloser. No, we’re not going to get into nuances of confidentiality agreements. Instead, this post is about the notion of a … Read More

“Compensation” Versus “Remuneration”

Today I tweeted the following: I suggest that we can consign "remuneration" (and "remunerate") to the scrapheap, use "compensation" (and "compensate") instead. — Ken Adams (@AdamsDrafting) December 20, 2017 It prompted the following tweet from the redoubtable @IPDraughts: No, no, no. Compensation is what you get when you are injured by an industrial accident. Pay is what you get from … Read More