Ken Adams

Ken Adams

47p

98 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

12 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - “Guaranty” or “G... · 0 replies · +1 points

Natalie: When it comes to contract usages, I don't care much about "the preferred variation." I care about what works best. Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - “Guaranty” or “G... · 0 replies · +1 points

Dutch: The fact that this post is the most visited on my blog suggests that there's plenty of confusion. As for Black's, it quotes Garner—not surprising, seeing as he's the editor.

More generally, I'm concerned not with making complex legal documents less confusing to the lay reader, but rather with making the language of business contracts less awkward and confusing for the lawyers and clients who have to read them. If you find any of my analyses lacking, I invite you to do battle with me in the marketplace of ideas.

Meanwhile, I continue to see no merit in perpetuating the guaranty/guarantee distinction.

Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - Australia: A Haven for... · 0 replies · +1 points

David: It must be nice to live in a land of relatively efficient contract language! I'd be grateful if you'd email me a business contract that's representative of what Australian law firms produce; I'd like to take it for a test drive.

I've stated in gruesome detail why I favor disciplined use of "shall" for purposes of business contracts, and I haven't encountered any reason to shift from that position. But there's no perfect solution for stating obligations, so others can mull the same factors and opt for a different solution. Note that I'd steer clear of "shall" for statutes and consumer contracts.

You would have to close with that bane of my existence, "I don't always agree with you"! (See this: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/11/03/dont-alwa... If people who disagree with me don't tell me why, how am I to improve my analysis? I invite you to prepare a list of what you find lacking in MSCD (I assume it goes beyond "shall"), and why. I have in mind that I'd post it on my blog and do my best to respond.

If you best me, I'll of course have to pack it in and take up turnip farming ...

Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - Revised Copyright Notice · 0 replies · +1 points

Ryan: You're right, but I'm not sure that a copyright notice constitutes contract language. Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - What Do You Think of M... · 0 replies · +1 points

Ryan: Yes, an oversight on my part. Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - What Do You Think of M... · 0 replies · +1 points

Mark: Yikes! This risks being a longer-than-usual copyright notice! Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - What Do You Think of M... · 0 replies · +1 points

Henry: A big $25, with steep volume discounts. When the time comes, let me know if it's been worth the wait! Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - Does Anyone Still Revi... · 0 replies · +1 points

Eric: Yes, my main point is that it's rare to see in-depth reviews of the less-glamorous texts.

And thank you for pointing out the paradox in my bemoaning the lack of such reviews while declining to write any myself. I've tried to resolve that in my own mind by thinking that I could review books in related fields. But the more principled thing to do would be to just go ahead and review books on contract drafting in as measured and dispassionate a manner as possible. My experience suggests that that can create bad blood: the marketplace of ideas isn't for the squeamish.

Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - Why I Don't Use "Immed... · 0 replies · +1 points

Mark: I don't think presence or absence of "then" affects meaning. Regarding the utility of "automatically" to indicate that notice isn't required, let me ponder. If caselaw suggests that it's best to address the issue, maybe it would be preferable to say "without either party having to give notice," or some such. Ken

13 years ago @ AdamsDrafting - For Optimal Contract L... · 0 replies · +1 points

Dennis: Unfortunately, how you interpret the phrase is less relevant than how the world at large interprets it. And your "basically" leaves a lot of room for confusion. Ken