I’ve decided that use of represents and warrants is the litmus test in the battle for clear contract language. That’s why I’m always game to chime in on the subject.
I had an opportunity to do so today, by posting this comment to an article by Drew Hasselback on the website of the Financial Post, a section of the Canadian publication the National Post.
My comment doesn’t say anything that I haven’t said many times before. And we’re not dealing with nuances here. I aim to express contract meaning clearly to all relevant constituencies. If you opt for the traditional take on represents and warrants, either you’re unfamiliar with my analysis or you prefer to play clever parlour games with contract language.
If you think I’m mistaken, by all means let me know, preferably after having read what I have to say on the subject. (If you don’t have the third edition of MSCD, search for represents and warrants on this blog.)
2 thoughts on “I Wade In Again on “Represents and Warrants””
Oh no, not again! It was and is an interesting debate. Let’s just say that great minds can, and do, differ on the subject.
No can do, Franco! I can understand using represents and warrants as a matter of expediency, but if anyone argues that it serves a useful purpose, their judgment on contract language isn’t to be trusted.
And yes, this probably gets old for those who have heard me bleating about the subject umpteen times before. But when a usage is both wrongheaded and entrenched, it makes sense to apply an antidote repeatedly.