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 Notice …
If the infringement of the CRISPR Patent Rights is solely in the Tracr Field and not in the CRISPR Field, and CRISPR fails to [read does not] bring any such action or proceeding with respect to infringement in the Tracr Field within …
If such Dissenting Stockholder withdraws its demand for appraisal or fails to [read does not] perfect or otherwise loses or waives its right of appraisal …
… or the inducement of others to fail to [read not to] cooperate …
If simpler is always better, isn’t does not always better than fails to? I know that does not doesn’t connote falling short the way fails to does. But that connotation isn’t necessary, and it might be inappropriate. I suggest that’s the case in the second and fourth examples above.
What do you think?
