As someone should have said, The price of freedom from ambiguity is eternal vigilance. Today’s lesson comes to you thanks to the eternally vigilant Glenn D. West, the what-to-say yin to my how-to-say-it yang. He alerted me to the recent opinion of the Delaware Court of Chancery in Batty v. UCAR International, Inc. (PDF here). Here’s the relevant bit (footnotes … Read More
In his most recent post on Weil’s Global Private Equity Watch (here), Glenn “Iceman” West discusses a recent Second Circuit opinion relating to Chesapeake Energy’s redemption of $1.3 billion in notes based on Chesapeake’s interpretation of the notes’ supplemental indenture. The supplemental indenture designates the period between 15 November 2012, and 15 March 2013 as the “Special Early Redemption Period.” … Read More
[Update: For my definitive take on this subject, see my article Eliminating the Phrase Represents and Warrants from Contracts, 16 Tennessee Journal of Business Law 203 (2015).] Yes, I know that I’m getting tiresome, they way I harp on about represents and warrants, like a dog worrying a bone. But I have a new element to add to my analysis. At … Read More
Via Mark Anderson, I learned of the opinion of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in Sycamore Bidco Ltd v. Breslin. I paid it just enough attention to see that it exemplifies an unhealthy English approach to contract drafting and contract interpretation. The contract at issue contained the following language: 5. Seller Warranties 5.1 The Sellers severally warrant to the Buyer … Read More
Yesterday I spotted the following tweet that @mcfandrew86, research development officer at Queensland University of Technology, Australia, apparently posted while at a contracts workshop: Basic rule of contract drafting? Don't use a USA contract as an example! Oh, and don't copy and paste in haste! #arms2012 — McFandrew (@mcfandrew86) September 19, 2012 Then there was this last week from @IPDraughts, … Read More
[This post replaces this previous post, which I deleted, except for the comments. Very occasionally I write something, post it, and then promptly realize that the topic in question is more complex than I had bargained for. That happened with my previous post. I revised it once, but realized that wouldn’t do the trick, and revising it again seemed a … Read More
[Adjusted 4:30 p.m. EDT, July 28, 2012, to implement the recommendations made by A. Wright Burke in his comment; revised 7:00 a.m. EDT, July 31, 2012, to overhaul the section on indemnify and hold harmless; revised August 13, 2012, to add paragraph “Recover for External Events or Circumstances”.] Over the past four years I’ve considered indemnification in half a dozen … Read More
I’ve written lots about represents and warrants (and representations and warranties), culminating in a series of posts a couple of years ago. See, in reverse chronological order, this post, this post, this post, and this post. With the last of those posts, I felt as if for the time being I’d said pretty much all I could say. And I felt … Read More
[Updated 20 Nov. 2023: For a discussion of using no-reliance language in commercial contracts, see this 2016 blog post.] [Updated 23 May 2011: Revised again to clarify the analysis. Sometimes it takes a while to get stuff right!] In Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co., WL 1445950 (Tex. April 15, 2011) (PDF copy here), the Texas Supreme Court … Read More
Is there no end to the confusion prompted by the verb indemnify? Recently in this post and this post I considered how a claim for indemnification relates to a claim for contract damages. In the first of those posts, reader Gord offered the following comment: Canadian lawyers when using indemnification language in contracts have had to consider and contend with an Alberta case … Read More
