I made it a point to have outside lawyers play a part in my course at Notre Dame Law School. I don’t know from pedagogy, so not a lot of forethought went into that decision. I simply figured that I should try to give my students a glimpse of the role of contract drafting in the larger world, rather than just the … Read More
It’s West LegalEdcenter’s sensible policy to pull webcasts after a couple of years. It follows that they’re no longer offering the “Drafting and Reviewing Confidentiality Agreements” webcast that I did for them in 2012. Well, I’m comfortable saying that the state of the law and practice is such that the webcast is still entirely relevant. So rather than let it languish, I’m now making it … Read More
In this post last month I proposed yet another category of contract language—language of belief. Here’s a cleaned-up version of my example of language of belief: The parties believe that this agreement complies with the requirements of section 409A of the IRS Code. But consider the follow observation by Glenn West, which comes from our recent exchange (see this post): In … Read More
[Updated 5 January 2016: Go here for my 2015 article on this topic under U.S. and English law; go here for my shorter 2015 article on this topic under U.S. law.] [Revised 11:00 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2012, to add that you should say “states the following facts.” Further revised 8:30 a.m. EDT, May 24, 2012, to change it to … Read More
I’m pleased to announce that West LegalEdcenter is now offering a new Koncision webcast, “Drafting and Reviewing Confidentiality Agreements.” It weighs in at 1 hour and 13 minutes and comes with CLE credit. Go here for more information. Joining me as co-presenters on the webcast are two of my favorite people, Chris Lemens and Glenn West. Both will be familiar … Read More
In this May 2011 blog post discussing the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Italian Cowboy Partners, I acknowledged that if you want to increase the odds of avoiding fraud liability for extracontractual statements of fact, it would be prudent to use “no reliance” language instead of just saying that Acme has made no representations other than those stated in the … Read More
Last December, I mothballed the AdamsDrafting blog and fired up The Koncise Drafter. If I were concerned about my stats, that move would have been a disaster—as it’s home to four years of my musings, the AdamsDrafting blog still gets about three times as many hits as The Koncise Drafter. But I’m not selling ads and don’t have to meet … Read More
As noted in this ABA Journal item, Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t find law reviews very useful. Neither do I. For purposes of this post, I’m taking “law review” to mean a scholarly journal that focuses on legal issues and is published by faculty or students at a law school or by a bar association. Every so often I glance at … Read More
It’s time that I tidied up one loose end. In this recent post, I proposed indemnification language to include in a confidentiality agreement in order to say who is responsible for liabilities resulting from disclosure of confidential information by representatives of the recipient. I thought that the new language would make it clear that when bringing a claim for indemnification … Read More
After chewing over the comments to this post on excluding consequential damages, I’m left with the following thoughts: I remain of the view that putting a cap on damages is the simplest and least contentious way to limit damages. And it can make excluding certain kinds of damages less relevant, or even entirely irrelevant. Whether a cap makes sense would … Read More
