Reader Steven Sholk of the Gibbons law firm alerted me to the February 6 decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Barbour v. Mississippi ex rel. Hood. Click here for a copy of the opinion. Steven had been alerted to this case by Rick Hasen of the Election Law blog.
This case involves a squabble between […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 2 Comments »| Print this Post
“The part versus the whole” is the term I use to refer to ambiguity regarding whether a single member of a group of two or more is being referred to, or the entire group.
Along with materiality, it’s the most complex topic I’ve written about. That helps explain how the literature on drafting has so thoroughly […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 1 Comment »| Print this Post
You should avoid using in your contracts the word willful (alternative spelling wilful), as it’s ambiguous.
This lesson comes courtesy of Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the Southern District of New York, in his opinion in Johnson & Johnson v. Guidant Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64114 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2007). (Click here for a copy […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 1 Comment »| Print this Post
My email in-box is overflowing with emails from Lexis notifying me of cases ostensibly relating to ambiguity. I fished from the torrent the following straightforward example of syntactic ambiguity. (Syntactic ambiguity arises out of the order in which words appear and how they relate to each other.) It’s from Active Zones of America, LLC v. […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 1 Comment »| Print this Post
A recent Illinois case, Regency Commercial Assocs., LLC v. Lopax, Inc., 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 476 (Ill. App. Ct. May 4, 2007), provides a great example of how syntactic ambiguity can really make a mess of a contractual relationship. (Click here for a copy of this case.)
The predecessor of the plaintiff Regency sold to the […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 1 Comment »| Print this Post
In Provident Bank v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10671 (6th Cir. May 2, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered the meaning of the word “foreclosure.” (Click here for a copy of this case.)
Owners of a home in Tennessee obtained a mortgage on their home from plaintiff […]
Permalink | Email this Post | No Comments »| Print this Post
Because so much litigation has its roots in deficient drafting, I keep half an eye on new case law, and I can be counted on to leap on anything that has a bearing one of my pet subjects. But I suspect that most cases that arise out of poorly drafted contracts don’t involve hot-button drafting […]
Permalink | Email this Post | No Comments »| Print this Post
I should have had enough of material and material adverse change, given that I discuss materiality in chapter 7 of MSCD, in this law review article, and in this article in the M&A Lawyer. But the topic continued to nag at me, and recently the fog cleared—I realized that my analysis was significantly flawed, and […]
Permalink | Email this Post | No Comments »| Print this Post
I’m grateful to David Gurfein, an associate in the New York office of Cozen O’Connor, for informing me of AIU Insurance Co. v. Robert Plan Corp., 14 Misc.3d 1216(A), 2006 WL 3904521 (N.Y. Sup. Dec. 26, 2006). This case considers how confusion over the distinction between that and which can result in ambiguity. (Click here […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 5 Comments »| Print this Post
I have a particular interest in the real-world implications of indifferent drafting, so I’ve been contemplating doing an occasional series on drafting screw-ups that make the news. I was prompted to inaugurate this series by Bryan Sims, who was kind enough to point out to me this article from today’s issue of the Canadian newspaper […]
Permalink | Email this Post | 10 Comments »| Print this Post