I recently noticed a Sidley Austin “practice note” (here) on use of revocable and irrevocable in license agreements. That’s something I hadn’t thought much about previously, so I found it of interest. The main takeaway: Always include either “revocable” or “irrevocable” within the license grant. If any of you licensing types have any observations, I’d be happy to hear them. … Read More
Thanks to this article by Carol Gerber on Attorney at Work, I learned about EagleEye, another software product that allows you to spot glitches in contracts. Here’s how the developer describes EagleEye: EagleEye automates the review of defined terms, inconsistent phrases, references and punctuation in legal agreements to ensure completeness, accuracy, consistency and lack of ambiguity. Designed for lawyers, EagleEye … Read More
I’m giving a seminar in Hong Kong on 5 March. (For more information, go here.) If people in Hong Kong are uncertain of the value of what I have to offer, here is some fresh feedback from participants at last week’s Singapore seminar: Extremely informative and useful Exceeded my expectations as new ideas & concepts are visited Very interactive and novel … Read More
Last week I was in Singapore to give a seminar. I had last been there some twenty years ago, and I enjoyed being back. It’s a prosperous, teeming, and efficient city, and I took the opportunity to roam around a bit and sample the street food. “Asia for beginners,” I was told. That seems about right. But traveling for seminars … Read More
This is my first post on AdamsDrafting.com in over two years. I’ve moved back here, bringing with me a copy of all my posts on The Koncise Drafter, at koncision.com. I’ve also redesigned the entire site. As I said in my final post on The Koncise Drafter, koncision.com will remain the home for all things relating to Koncision Contract Automation. … Read More
[Update: Go here for the June 15, 2013 post about my article It’s Time to Get Rid of the “Successors and Assigns” Provision.] The shortcomings of traditional contract language come in varying degrees of subtlety. At the unsubtle end of the spectrum is the “successors and assigns” provision. It’s utterly standard, but it’s also, um, problematic. I tackled the “successors … Read More
If you’re in the market for—gulp!—37 minutes of conversation about the third edition of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, go here for an ABA Section of Business Law podcast that offers exactly that. It consists of a conversation between me and my longtime reader and cohort Michael Fleming (@FlemingMF on Twitter). If that seems like more than you … Read More
Via @chbusca and the Legal Informatics blog, I learned that Harry Surden of the University of Colorado Law School has published in the UC Davis Law Review an article with the concise title Computable Contracts. (It makes a change from the tedious business of cutesy title, colon, long-winded subtitle.) Here’s the abstract: It is possible to formulate contractual obligations so … Read More
In the recent opinion of the Delaware U.S. District Court in Racing v. T-Mobile U.S. (here), the following contract language was at issue: VICI grants to [T-Mobile] the right to be the exclusive wireless carrier supplying wireless connectivity for the Porsche, Audi, and VW telematics programs beginning in model year 2011 with such exclusivity continuing throughout the Term of this … Read More
Although it’s standard to refer to contract “rights,” in this November 2012 post on rethinking the “no assignment” provision, I said the following about “rights”: It’s unclear what “rights” refers to. (I don’t use the word “rights” anywhere in MSCD.) I think it refers to discretion granted to a party under an agreement and any remedy that a party has under … Read More
