Uncategorized

Revisiting “Representations and Warranties”

The Nov.–Dec. 2005 issue of Business Law Today contains my article A Lesson in Drafting Contracts: What’s Up with “Representations and Warranties?” Because in this article I give a categorical thumbs-down to a usage present in the overwhelming majority of corporate agreements, I was prepared for some pushback. So when Business Law Today published in its Jan.–Feb. 2006 issue Tina … Read More

New Article on MAC Provisions

I’ve just posted on the “Ken Adams’s Articles” page a copy of my article Understanding “Material Adverse Change” Provisions, which is in the June 2006 issue of The M&A Lawyer. As I explain in the article, it’s a more concise and practitioner-friendly version of the analysis of MAC provisions contained in MSCD and my law review article on the subject.

Pre-closing Knowledge of Inaccurate Representations

This weekend, I decided to explore the implications of the Buyer knowing, pre-closing, that a Seller representation is inaccurate. (I haven’t seen the various aspects of this topic treated together in any detail from the perspective of the drafter.) Here’s what I put together; you should consider it a first draft. I’d be happy to receive comments. Disclosing Pre-closing Knowledge … Read More

Schedules and Exhibits as Part of a Contract

It’s commonplace for drafters to assume that unless they say so explicitly, schedules and exhibits attached to a contract don’t constitute part of that contract. Here’s an assortment of contract language reflecting this assumption: Schedule A constitutes a part of this agreement. All exhibits referenced in this agreement are made a part of this agreement. The exhibits and schedules hereto … Read More

Calling All Linguists—A Question Regarding Verb Use

With your indulgence, I’d like to talk grammar. At the heart of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting is what’s discussed in chapter 3—the different categories of contract language and the verb use that’s appropriate to each. One such category is “language of performance,” which serves to memorialize actions of the parties that are contemporaneous with the signing of … Read More

Referring to Trademarks

I’ve spent a fair amount of time recently working on commercial agreements, and I’ve noticed that some companies require that their registered trademarks be stated in all capital letters, with the registration symbol “®” appended, whenever the trademarks are referred to in a contract. When reading a contract that refers repeatedly to, say, “FLEXORBALIN®” (I made that up), I find … Read More

“Curly” and “Straight” Quotation Marks

I’ve been filling some gaps in my knowledge of Microsoft Word, and while browsing Word’s online “Help” database recently I was reminded of one of my favorite microtopics—“curly” and “straight” quotation marks and the role they play when you review contracts drafted by the other side to a transaction. In a serif typeface such as Times New Roman, curly quotation … Read More

“Notice” or “Prior Notice”?

Last February, Wayne Schiess, Director of Legal Writing at the University of Texas School of Law, asked me whether I had any views on a question that he had posed in his blog: Is there a difference between giving notice and giving prior notice? At the time my home office was draped in drop cloths, so my response was perfunctory … Read More

Recitals of Consideration Under Canadian Law

In MSCD (¶¶ 2.64–71) and a Business Law Today article on the subject, I recommend strongly that drafters dispense with the traditional recital of consideration. The traditional recital of consideration is the consideration language that clogs the lead-in to the body of the contract in a majority of contracts. The language varies, but here’s an example of a lead-in containing … Read More

“Stockholder” or “Shareholder”?

Sometimes the distinctions that contract drafters are most vehement about are those that happen to be spurious. Consider, for example, the pointless debate over whether to use between or among in the introductory clause. (See MSCD ¶ 2.21.) It’s similarly unnecessary to make a fetish of using stockholder rather than shareholder—in contracts and elsewhere—when the corporation in question was formed under Delaware law.

Read More