Longtime readers will know that I have no time for the notion of “tested” contract language—instead of continuing to use confusing contract language because a court has had occasion to attribute meaning to it, I prefer to state meaning clearly.
So instead of relying on caselaw to tell me how to draft contracts, I find caselaw mostly useful for the lessons it offers on how not to draft contracts. I consider what contract language created the confusion that led to a given dispute, and I attempt to draw general lessons from it.
But in addition to caselaw in which the dysfunction is to be found in contract language, there’s also caselaw in which the court either contributes to the confusion or finds confusion where there isn’t any. Here are three posts I’ve published in recent days that discuss three such cases and the lesson to be drawn from each:
- UBS Securities v. Highland Capital (this post): If you include redundancy in your contracts, don’t be surprised if a court attributes unanticipated meaning to it. To avoid that happening, rid your contracts of clutter, even if it seems benign.
- SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (this post): Don’t be surprised if a court misdiagnoses potential ambiguity and uses an indefensible analysis to justify its conclusion that the language at issue isn’t ambiguous. To avoid that happening, eliminate ambiguity from your contracts, except for those instances of part-versus-the-whole ambiguity that you’ve decided are unlikely to cause problems (for more on that, see this article).
- Medfusion, Inc. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (this post): Courts have been known to find ambiguity where informed analysis indicates none exists. Want to avoid that happening? Well, you could get on your knees and pray …
Why discuss these cases? I could limit myself to generalizations, but it’s only by examining mistakes that you learn. And courts are public servants, so it’s appropriate to shine a spotlight on their work.
Yes, occasionally I allow myself to have a bit of fun in the process, but don’t assume that I wish to denigrate U.S. courts. All told, I think that they do reasonably well what is a very difficult job. My one general complaint is their approach to expert-witness testimony on ambiguity; I discuss that at the end of my SuperGuide post.