I’ve searched a dozen contracts on my computer, and another dozen on EDGAR, without finding the word very. That might seem odd, given that very is such a basic word. So basic, in fact, that Lexis won’t allow you to include it in a search. But as a measure of magnitude, for contract purposes very is essentially unusable—the reader has … Read More
[Updated December 8, 2011: I can confirm that despite the flooding in Thailand, the Bangkok seminar will be going ahead.] I’m delighted that in February 2012, I’ll be presenting in the following cities, under the auspices of Marcus Evans, my two-day seminar “Effective Contract Drafting: Concise Language, Efficient Process”: February 13–14, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (go here for more information) February … Read More
Simple words are better, right? So why not use the verb end instead of terminate? Here’s what it would look like: This agreement will [terminate] [end] on October 29, 2011. Acme may [terminate] [end] this agreement if … Similarly, you could use the verb buy instead of purchase: Acme hereby [purchases] [buys] the Shares … . But aside from ingrained habit, perhaps … Read More
When I review my students’ contract-drafting assignments, I’ll flag instances of what I think of as word-processing debris: superfluous spaces or tabs that follow a given block of text. They look sloppy. You wouldn’t see them in a printed copy of a document, and you wouldn’t see them if you haven’t selected “Show” in Word’s “Show/Hide” option. (What, you haven’t … Read More
Add rightfully and rightful to the list of words that are best omitted from any contract. The word rightfully occurs in 661 contracts filed as “material contracts” on the SEC’s EDGAR system, which makes it a relatively commonplace feature of the contract landscape. Here are some examples: Confidential Information shall not include information that: … the Licensee rightfully obtains from a … Read More
If you want to be depressed, I recommend you consult this article on Lexology (free registration required) by Wragge & Co., the U.K.-headquartered international law firm. It’s entitled—long-winded-title alert—Before you take the plunge. Back to basics on contracts – part 4. Best, reasonable and all reasonable endeavours – how far are you agreeing to go and what are you committed to? (Thanks … Read More
National Magazine, the magazine of the Canadian Bar Association, contains Jordan Furlong‘s new article Here Come the Robo-Lawyers. I’ve long enjoyed reading Jordan’s stuff—he’s an astute observer of the legal scene. So I was pleased that Koncision was one of three technologies he featured in the article. Another technology mentioned is Neota Logic, which I wasn’t familiar with. Hmm—could it … Read More
Sports types invoke “100%” unusually often. (“Well, Dick, we’ve got to give it 100%!”) Mind you, if things are serious, 100% might not be enough! For some reason, 110% became an accepted figure, but even that’s sometimes eclipsed, as noted in this 2005 article from ESPN.com. Well, some contract drafters are also fond of “100%”, in that they use it … Read More
I noticed that the Rocket Lawyer confidentiality agreement that I wrote about in this post yesterday excludes liability for “direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages.” Language excluding damages is a nightmare, because hardly anyone understands what that jargon means. It’s something I wrote about in this February 2010 post and this March 2010 blog post, both on AdamsDrafting. Here’s the glossary … Read More
If a contract says that you may do something, no purpose is served by saying you may exercise that discretion “freely”—nothing suggests that the discretion granted would otherwise be somehow restricted. Nevertheless, may freely or its passive counterpart, may be freely, occur in 292 “material contracts” filed on the SEC’s EDGAR system in the past year. That doesn’t equal an … Read More
