One of the participants at my recent Washington, D.C. seminar asked me about the notation “intentionally omitted.” I love being asked about stuff I hadn’t ever thought of writing about. “Intentionally omitted” is used in a contract to indicate when the text of an article, section, subsection, or enumerated clause has been omitted while leaving the enumeration of that unit … Read More
Reader Mike reminded me of the usage may but is not required to, as in the following provision: Indevus may, but is not required to, assist Esprit, at Esprit’s election, in Esprit’s efforts to seek and obtain FDA Approvals, subject to reimbursement of Indevus’ related costs and expenses. The word that comes to mind is “lame”—may expresses discretion, so is … Read More
If commercial contracts are your thing and on Monday morning you find yourself in the Seattle area with some time on your hands, you might want to consider attending a presentation by Tim Cummins, president and CEO of the International Association for Contract and Commercial Management (IACCM to its friends). The presentation is being hosted by Starbucks. You don’t need … Read More
I’ve already had occasion to consider the distinction between obligations and conditions. (Click here and here.) Well, here’s another thought: If satisfaction of a condition would trigger an obligation on the part of another party, then instead of using a condition to express that concept you may want to use languagage of discretion using will not be required to. (For … Read More
I recently spoke with a large company that was preparing to drastically reduce the number of template contracts that its lawyers and business people had to work with. The process was going to involve close review of its current templates, of which there were dozens. That seemed like a daunting prospect. Around the same time, I first heard of Wordsensa … Read More
The Sept.–Oct. 2007 issue of “Deal Lawyers” contains my article “What does ‘Material’ Mean.” Click here for a copy of the entire issue. This article represents a boiled-down version of my recent New York Law Journal article on the subject. But thanks to valuable input from two readers of this blog, I’ve made some useful changes: I jettisoned the defined … Read More
A reader from Australia emailed me the following: You may be interested to see what the Courts of New South Wales make of the “difference” between “best endeavours” and “all reasonable endeavours”—pretty much nothing (usually), which reflects what the law in Australia has been for over 20 years. Here’s how a recent Chief Justice of our High Court put it: … Read More
On December 10th I’ll be in Toronto doing my “Contract Drafting—Language and Layout” workshop for Osgoode Professional Development. Click here to go to the relevant page of Osgoode Professional Development’s website; click here to see the brochure. My three previous Osgoode workshops have been two-day affairs. Why only one day this time? The first day of each of the two-day … Read More
Yesterday I encountered an article that discusses why Sarbanes-Oxley should be of concern to anyone who’s responsible for a public company’s contracts. There are doubtless other works on this subject, but I’m cheerfully unaware of them. Here’s the citation: Colin P.A. Jones, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Inch-Thick Contract, 5 Richmond Journal of Law and Business 1 (2005). Click here for a … Read More
Here’s another weapon in the never-ending war on verbiage in contracts—be careful how you use the word basis. As Bryan Garner says in Garner’s Modern American Usage, “The word basis often signals verbosity in adverbial constructions.” So instead of on a daily basis, try daily, as in “Interest will accrue on a daily basis [read daily].” (In other words, use … Read More
