About the author
Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.
Very useful in Indian context where we take liberties with “applicable”. With Regards, V. Sounder Rajan, VS Rajan Associates, Chennai
I dislike applicable as a rule-of-thumb as well (‘applicable laws’ being the prime example), but have found a couple of places I couldn’t work around it (or at least where the alternatives were no more succinct). My favorite:
I have a client that is a player in a highly regulated industry — It is subject to compliance with a number of laws/regs that other ‘regular’ businesses would have no idea about or could argue that they had no obligation to comply with. Say, for example, my client is subject to regulations that require it to maintain the confidentiality of certain types of consumer information, which (in the absence of a contractual obligation) the other non-regulated party to the contract could freely disclose/use/mess with to its heart’s content.
We need to be sure that the third party’s actions in dealing with the consumer data won’t cause us to be violating our own ‘by law’ obligations.
Just saying that the other party has to obey all laws won’t help us, since that party has no obligation under the law. Alternatively, I could simply parrot in my contract with that other party what the law obligates me to do/not do. But, that doesn’t account for how the law might change over time, or be interpreted, etc. So, I’d like to tie the other party’s obligations to the law itself, albeit as a contractual obligation to me rather than suggesting he is directly regulated by those laws.
Thus, I use a phrase like: “You shall comply with all laws that are applicable to me.” (I might supplement that with examples, such as “including the obligations to maintain consumer privacy of a financial institution under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.” But, I’m not even sure I’ve said what I want to say, since the other side might look at that and say “But, since I’m not a financial institution, I, by definition, comply with the GLBA by doing exactly nothing.” I’ve been reluctant to spell it out in as wordy a way as I’ve explained it above — There must be a better answer. Nonetheless, I’ve yet to come up with it.
(I suspect that if I tried to throw in the scary concept of Agency that it would get batted down, so I’ve not tried that route yet.)
Michael: I think your issue goes beyond “applicable.” I might say something like “In order to ensure that ___________, Acme shall handle all Consumer Information in the same manner as Widgetco is required to handle Consumer Information under the XYZ Act.” Ken
I think that applicable has meaning in the “applicable law” sense, but that may not entirely be obvious in the sense that most drafters think of it.
I deal with international transactions on a regular basis. It’s no secret different jurisdictions have differing laws in areas like labor standards. The problem arises where the parties are from different jurisdictions and neither wants to brush up on the business and regulation of their partner. Applicable, in this case, shifts the burden of applying the law to the party in the best position to know the law. This avoids the silly problem of “exhibits” regarding acceptable labor practices which may themselves be in violation of the law of non-drafter’s country.
Mike: I have no problem with “applicable” in the context that you mention, in that you’re referring to one of two alternative sets of laws. Ken