• Home
  • About
    • Credentials
    • Press
  • Training
    • Masterclass
    • Webcourse
    • Seminars
  • Writing
    • A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting
    • The Structure of M&A Contracts
    • Articles
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Layout Templates
    • The Numbering Assistant
  • Contact

Adams on Contract Drafting

When Common-Law Contract Terminology Collides with Civil Law

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Ken Adams

A topic of particular interest to me is the ways in which contract terminology used by those practicing in common-law jurisdictions doesn’t make sense in a contract governed by the law of a civil-law jurisdiction.

It’s a topic I’ve touched on sporadically; see for example this 2009 post on enforceability of time is of the essence provisions in civil-law jurisdictions. But I was reminded of it earlier this month, when I attended a presentation at a law firm on the other side of the Atlantic.

When the phrase consequential damages was raised, a Spanish lawyer present said that courts in civil-law countries are bewildered by the phrase and essentially ignore it. I wasn’t able to get any further information on the subject. So, dear readers, would you care to enlighten me?

And more broadly, I’d now like to attempt to crowdsource information about additional problematic common-law usages. What do you say, civil-law lawyers?

(In this post from way back in 2006 I wrote about civil-law drafting compared to common-law drafting. But it doesn’t address specific usages. And if you, like the rest of us, are confused about the phrase consequential damages, see this 2010 post and the later post that it links to.)

Posted in International 11 Comments

Search

Connect

  • Email
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Subscribe

  • RSS Feed
  • Newsletter
  • LinkedIn Group
LegalSifter – a new Standard of Care

Categories

Archives

Work with M&A contracts?

Kenneth A. Adams | Adams on Contract Drafting
© 2021 Kenneth A. Adams | kadams@adamsdrafting.com | Privacy Policy | (516) 318-6956