Last week, Kevin Miller, LegalSifter’s CEO, used Adams Contracts’ confidentiality agreement template. In the process, he suggested that I bold the title.
When Kevin shared his opinion, I realized I’ve never explained why I don’t bold the title, and no one had ever commented on that preference. So around 25 years into my grand adventure, allow me to articulate to myself, and share with you, for the first time why I don’t bold the title.
I think in terms of local conspicuousness and global conspicuousness. From the perspective of local conspicuousness, nothing is gained by bolding the title. It’s at the top of the contract, nothing impedes the reader from reading it, and it’s separated from the introductory clause that follows. Because bolding the title would be unnecessary, I’d find it intrusive.
But in terms of global conspicuousness, article headings are, like the title, in all caps, with no other emphasis. It follows that in my drafting, nothing suggests that the title takes primacy over article headings. But the title’s position and use of all caps are sufficient to signal the title’s primacy. No reader confusion is possible.
Furthermore, if a contract isn’t divided into articles, you’re not presented with the theoretical issue of the relationship of the title to article headings. It would be annoying to not bold the title for contracts without article headings but bold it for contracts with article headings. I’m comfortable with not bolding it in either case.
As you were!
