In this March 2022 post, I examined an article by Eric Martinez, Frank Mollica, and Edward Gibson about their study showing that contracts are poorly written. I said that this article tells us nothing we don’t already know. The same authors are now back with another article, this one entitled Even Lawyers Do Not Like Legalese (here), published in the … Read More
These days I don’t write much about legaltech for contracts. There’s way too much of it. And I don’t do deals, so I’m not in much of a position to put such products through their paces. But I’m making an exception with this Q&A with Steven Gullion, of CrossCheck. CrossCheck looks for technical glitches that can afflict use of defined … Read More
I’ll now revisit something I last wrote about in 2013: double materiality. Here’s a statement of fact (in the language of the Ancient Ones, a “representation and warranty”) and the associated bringdown condition, neither qualified by materiality: The Seller’s financial records contain no inaccuracies. The Buyer’s obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated by this agreement is subject to satisfaction of … Read More
Although no one publicly challenges my recommendations (see this 2018 blog post), I’ve occasionally encountered, in writing and in private exchanges with lawyers and law-school faculty, general arguments for sticking with traditional contract language. Here’s my taxonomy of those arguments. Claiming That Traditional Contract Language “Works” One such argument is that traditional contract language “works.” (See for example this 2017 … Read More
Well lookee here, another fight involving ambiguity of the part versus the whole! This time, it involves any. And the tipster, once again, is Glenn West! I guess I have to put Glenn on retainer. (Glenn’s tip about a fight over and gave rise to this post from two months ago.) The opinion in question is by the Texas Supreme … Read More
Last week I tweeted this, or something close to it: “When I want authoritative contract-drafting advice, I look to litigators.” I was aware that it was unclear whether I was being sincere or snarky. After a few hours, I decided that being gratuitously confusing was unhelpful, so I deleted the tweet. But the replies to my tweet remain. Some endorse … Read More
This past week I wrapped up the first three series (apart from trial series) of my new online course Drafting Clearer Contracts: Masterclass. On thing that’s clear is that for many people, pandemic life is hectic. I ended up moving several people to a later series because of some crisis or other. And plenty of people missed sessions for various … Read More
Ken: I’m here with Mark Anderson, an English lawyer who specializes in IP transactions. He’s also a blogger and the co-author or editor of too many books related to contracts. I’ve mentioned him plenty on my blog, and we’ve done some interesting stuff together—just search for his name on my blog. Mark: I see you exhumed that photo from 2014. … Read More
Recently I noticed Mark Anderson’s post entitled Why Do We Tolerate Bad Templates? Spoiler alert: Mark says it’s because people like what they’re used to and because they assume that if they haven’t encountered problems yet they won’t in the future. Bad I’ll now explore the assumption underlying Mark’s post—that many, or most, templates are bad. Is that the case? … Read More
Bryan Garner is a big name in legal lexicography, litigation writing, and guidance on general English usage. He has a new book out, on contract drafting. It’s called Garner’s Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Contracts, and it’s not good. But first, why write a review? Because using any reference work requires a leap of faith, and book reviews help readers … Read More
