A few weeks ago David Munn of Fair Isaac Corporation sent me the following email: Your email below reminded me of a pet peeve of mine that I don’t believe you’ve written about. You wrote “My class runs from 4:30PM to 6:30PM EST.” Your usage is correct because you are referring to a time in November. However, I’m seeing more … Read More
In this March 2007 post I discussed language to use, and language not to use, when making an ancillary document—including a web page—part of a contract without physically attaching it. (I subsequently invented the term “virtual attachment” to describe any such ancillary document.) What prompted that post was a case that held that saying that the contract at issue was … Read More
One of the consequences of my having written articles on “material adverse change” provisions is that I get calls from reporters asking for insightful observations about any MAC dispute that makes the news. This time, it’s the lawsuit filed by Sallie Mae against a buyout group led by J.C. Flowers. Click here to see the WSJ Law Blog’s item on … Read More
Consider the following purpose recital, plucked from an agreement filed last month on the SEC’s EDGAR system: WHEREAS, in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Asset Purchase Agreement, Buyer desires that Seller Manufacture (as defined herein) and supply certain Products to Buyer, and Seller desires to Manufacture and supply such Products to Buyer in accordance with this agreement. Ignore … Read More
On Minor Wisdom, Ray Ward listed this blog as one of his ten favorite law blogs. So did China Law Blog. It’s great to have people acknowledge my efforts in this manner. But apparently I now have to share the luuurve by naming my own ten favorites. I used to be a chronic non-joiner, but evidently blogging has turned me … Read More
Here’s what Garner’s Modern American Usage has to say about only: Only is perhaps the most frequently misplaced of all English words. Its best placement is precisely before the words intended to be limited. The more words separating only from its correct position, the more awkward the sentence; and such a separation can lead to ambiguities. … Yet the strong … Read More
The following constructions using party are commonplace: Acme is a party to a confidentiality agreement with Widgetco dated October 7, 2007. Acme and Widgetco are parties to a confidentiality agreement dated October 7, 2007. In the above examples, party is used as a noun. I suggest that in this context it would be preferable to use it as an adjective. … Read More
Reader Mike told me about IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2007). I’m delighted that he did, because it’s yet another case that I can point to in making the argument that to control your drafting you need to clearly distinguish one category of contract language from another. IpVenture owns and licenses patents on inventions relating … Read More
Yesterday was devoted to grading assignments submitted by students in my Penn Law contract-drafting course. One of them unintentionally made me aware of the formula Party X hereby grants Party Y the right to [verb]. It’s language of performance functioning as language of discretion. If a contract contains the provision Acme may sell the Assets, it’s appropriate for the reader … Read More
In grading student assignments, I found myself commenting on their use of unless the parties agree otherwise. I thought that I had already written something somewhere about this phrase, but evidently not. So here goes: As a general matter, the phrase unless the parties agree otherwise is redundant. The parties could agree to waive, amend, or delete any provision in … Read More
