What happens if a contract says that someone is personally liable for an obligation, but that person signs the contract not in their individual capacity, but as an officer of a limited liability company? In this newsletter article, Doug Batey of Stoel Rives considers a recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion that addressed exactly that issue. Here, from Doug’s article, are … Read More
I recently received the following inquiry: I was wondering if you could clarify a point for me and my boss. It has been my understanding that when defining terms in an agreement, it is standard to use the word “together” when referring to two entities only, and to use the word “collectively” when referring to three or more entities. When I recently … Read More
Over the years I’ve written about materiality a number of times. The discussion in MSCD represents my most recent take, but I’m revisiting the subject for purposes of my forthcoming booklet on the structure of M&A contracts. While finalizing the booklet—a task that has taken me away from blogging—I’ve found myself considering an issue that I haven’t previously addressed head-on. Below is … Read More
I don’t exchange drafts with people on the other side of a transaction, so generally I don’t have to worry about metadata. But if unlike me you actually do deals, you should be attuned to the risks of metadata and how to stay out of trouble. So you might want to read a new article on the subject by law-technology … Read More
Under the auspices of my Canada partner Osgoode Professional Development, I’ve done public seminars not only in Toronto but also Vancouver, Calgary, and Ottawa. Next up is Halifax on September 22, with another in Toronto on November 3; for more information, click here. And the plan is to go to Montreal for the first time in early 2011. I suspect … Read More
I just received the following broadside from a reader: You choose to use your blog to tout your own book and for self-validation. I certainly hope you are not deceiving yourself that your purpose is to foster discussion or refine your own body of knowledge. That’s fine, each to his own, I just wonder why you have the comments turned … Read More
Recently I’ve been pondering whether I should put together an online multiple-choice test that would allow users to assess their command of MSCD-compliant contract language. It would be a simple enough matter to come up with fifty to 100 questions; each would offer an explanation that cites the relevant discussion in MSCD. Users would pay a modest fee to take the … Read More
I’ve written previously about ContractExpress, the document-assembly software developed by my partner and sponsor, Business Integrity. (See this February 2010 blog post for my Q&A with Andy Wishart, CTO of Business Integrity.) If you’d like to see what someone else has to say about the “cloud” version of ContractExpress, check out this Law Technology News article by Sean Doherty. (I had … Read More
A reader asked me what I think about therefor. Here’s my equivocal answer: In MSCD 12.99 I note that here– and there– words such as herein and thereunder are dreary legalese. That’s why I use in this agreement instead of herein. But sometimes, a there– word allows you to avoid long-winded repetition. Looking more closely at therefor suggests another wrinkle … Read More
If I were at the helm of a well-funded trade group called “The Association of Contract-Drafting Professionals” (yeah, right) and we were rolling out an advertising campaign, here’s what I might use as a slogan: Contract language is specialized. Leave it to specialists. Here’s the idea behind it: Contract language is akin to software code—it’s limited and stylized. Just as … Read More
