I sent a contact my first draft of an article about—what else!—dysfunctional mainstream contract language. In the modern way, my contact fed my draft to Claude, to see what Claude thought of it. They then forwarded to me what Claude had to say. One thing stuck out: Litigated language has known meaning; novel clearer language trades interpretive certainty for readability, … Read More
Longtime readers will be aware that I roll my eyes at the notion of relying on contract language that has been “tested” by courts. As I say in a 2006 blog post, “Why rely on language that resulted in litigation? Instead, express any given concept clearly, so you don’t have to gamble on case law breathing into it the desired … Read More
The Notion of “Tested” Contract Language LinkedIn is the place where dead ideas go to be endlessly reborn from their ashes, like a phoenix. One such idea is the notion that it’s risky to abandon the legalese featured in contracts, because courts have told us what those words and phrases mean. My first blog post about this notion of “tested” … Read More
I noticed that another legacy-media holdover, Scientific American, has devoted an article (here) to that recent study on lawyer attitudes to contracts legalese. In this recent post, I explain how that study is misleading. But that’s not what this post is about. Instead, in passing I noticed this in the Scientific American article: Jeremy Telman, a law professor at the … Read More
The most prevalent defense of traditional contract language is that it has been “tested” by the courts. Heck, I even encountered an ardent proponent of the notion on my recent trip to Saudi Arabia. So I wasn’t surprised to encounter this comment on LinkedIn that endorses the notion. But I was intrigued that the comment was by the general counsel … Read More
Today, thanks to a tweet by @360venturelaw, I stumbled upon a blog post entitled “Famous Last Words: ‘The Shorter the Better.’” It’s by Mike Stanczyk, a corporate attorney based in Syracuse, New York. It’s a sensible post, but Mike wraps it up with the following point: In closing I will say that when possible I prefer and do use “plain English” agreements. However, its … Read More
The biggest conceptual obstacle to clearer contract language is the notion of “tested” contract language—the idea that if a court offers its interpretation of confusing contract language, we’re forevermore committed to using that confusing contract language to convey that meaning. But recently I’ve heard people discussing a related concept—whether a provision is “market”. A provision is “market” if it’s so … Read More
For lawyers unwilling or unable to overhaul their traditional contract language, the excuse of choice is that traditional language has been “tested”—if you meddle with it, you’re exposing yourself to all sorts of risk. I discussed in this 2006 post how the notion of “tested” contract language is nonsense, and I revisited the issue in this 2012 post, as well … Read More
In the past ten days, I have twice had people mention to me, in the course of conversation, the notion of “tested” contract language. The idea is that while contract prose could certainly be improved, changing it would be risky—traditional contract language has been litigated, or “tested,” and so has a clearly established meaning (is “settled”). This argument has long … Read More
I’ll now revisit something I last wrote about in 2013: double materiality in the bringdown condition. (I see the term “double materiality” thrown around in other contexts, so I think it’s best to be specific.) The Theory Here’s a statement of fact (in the language of the Ancient Ones, a “representation and warranty”) and the associated bringdown condition, neither qualified … Read More
