Just a reminder that on October 16 at 14:30 BST (9:30 EDT), I’ll be giving for eCPD Webinars a webinar entitled “The Perils of Translating International Contracts.” For more information, go here. Thereafter it will be available in recorded form.
The Korean periodical the Legal Times has published the first part of my article English-Language Contracts: Reducing the Clutter and Confusion (go here). [Update: Go here for the second part.] What’s novel about this article is that it’s in Korean. It had to be, if I wanted it published in a Korean legal periodical. My thanks to Jacki Noh for the translation. … Read More
A reader who identified himself as “a faithful reader from Northern Virginia” asked me about use of the word faithfully in contracts—yet another usage that had somehow escaped my scrutiny. In trawling for faithfully on the SEC’s EDGAR system, I saw that it’s used primarily in provisions stating an employee’s principal obligation under an employment agreement: Executive shall devote her best … Read More
A couple of readers sent me links to articles relating to Steven Pinker and his new book, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. For those who are unfamiliar with him, Steven Pinker is, I suppose, about as close as we get to a public intellectual these days. His mane of grey curls probably helps! I’m … Read More
This week I had the pleasure of giving two in-house “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminars in Doha, Qatar. As often happens, I came away with with a new issue to explore. In particular, one of the participants asked me what I thought of use in contracts of the adverb continuously. He didn’t think much of it. And now I can say that … Read More
Consider the following, the first expressed positively, the second expressed negatively: We’ll let you into the party only if you’re wearing a red carnation and a top hat. We won’t let you into the party unless you’re wearing a red carnation and a top hat. But it’s unlikely that you’d be admitted to the party if you were wearing only … Read More
Last month I considered in this post the relative merits of shall not … unless and may … only if, the former negative, the latter positive. I ended up opting for the former, at least provisionally. Now consider the following: An amendment to this agreement will be effective only if it is in writing and signed by both parties. An amendment to … Read More
Go here for my interview on Scholastica Blog about my recent course at Notre Dame Law School.
The current issue of The Australian Corporate Lawyer—the journal of the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association—contains my article Banishing Shall from Business Contracts: Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater (PDF copy here). What it has to say won’t come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog, but I expect that it will come as a surprise to plenty of … Read More
In this post I mentioned that I had asked my students at Notre Dame Law School to analyze the verb structures in the “SOW terms & conditions agreement” (available here) that goes with Cisco’s advanced-services statement of work. Well, I decided that some of you might find of interest my comments on how categories of contract language are handled in the first three … Read More
