Updated: Further Thoughts on Making Sale and Payment Concurrent

You might recall that last year in this post I suggested the possibility of using “language of concurrence” if when someone sells something the purchase price is being paid at the time the contract is being signed. Last month I revisited that idea in this post.

Well, I just realized there’s a traditional-language equivalent. Here’s an example:

In consideration of ten dollars in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, this offer shall remain open for 30 days.

But I’m not about to endorse this approach. For one thing, in hand paid is too olde-worlde. But use of this formula suggested that it was appropriate for me to keep looking for an alternative to expressing concurrent payment using language of obligation.

So how about this:

Acme hereby purchases the Equipment from Widgetco for the Purchase Price. Acme has paid the Purchase Price to Widgetco concurrently with the parties’ signing this agreement, and Widgetco acknowledges having received the Purchase Price.

It avoids the main problem readers had with language of concurrence, which is that it lacked finality.

What do you think?

Updated 15 November 2015, with further updates 19 November to change “the Purchase Price” to *$10,000″:

OK, after extracting nuggets of wisdom from A. Wright Burke’s scurrilous screeds :-) , here’s a revised version:

Acme hereby purchases the Equipment from Widgetco for $10,000, which Widgetco acknowledges having received from Acme concurrently with the parties’ signing this agreement.

Now, A. Wright Burke might object that if Widgetco says that it has received the $10,000, then that means it isn’t receiving it concurrently with signing. That’s correct, but my version reflects two practical considerations: First, I don’t want to suggest that payment occurred earlier in a separate step: that doesn’t accurately reflect the process of my shoving across the conference-room table, as the parties are signing the contract, a Halliburton briefcase stuffed with wads of $100 bills. And second, I think that saying instead is receiving would be too open ended for some in Acme’s position: they don’t want Widgetco to be able to come back later and say, “We were in the process of receiving the money, but then something happened!”

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.