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.)