• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Contract Writing

Ken Adams Makes A Standing Offer.

27 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Ken Adams Makes A Standing Offer.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contract Writing, Ken Adams

How I Would Go About Redrafting Your Templates, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/how-i-would-go-about-redrafting-your-templates/

Ken Adams has made a “standing offer.” If you send him one of your contract templates, he will take the time to edit it.

Wow. Even if you are the best contract writer in the world, why wouldn’t you take Mr. Adams’ up on such a generous offer? Opportunities such as this do not come along every day. Thank you, Mr. Adams! -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Proper Use and Interpretation of “Shall” and “Will.”

26 Thursday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Corporate Law, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on The Proper Use and Interpretation of “Shall” and “Will.”

Tags

Contract Writing, Elizabeth Ruiz Frost, Grammar, Legal Writing, Oregon State Bar Bulletin (February/March), Use of "Shall" and "Will"

The Legal Writer – The Problem with Shall, by Elizabeth Ruiz Frost, Oregon State Bar Bulletin (February/March)

https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/12febmar/legalwriter.html

When we draft legal documents for our clients, we aim to articulate who can do what and when. Those rights and obligations are established through words of authority. But in legal writing, inconsistent use and interpretation of some words of authority can create ambiguity in our documents.

The word shall can be particularly troublesome. Drafters often use shall in place of other words like does, will, should, might or may. If we use shall sometimes to connote a mandatory term, at other times to connote a discretionary term, and once in a while to connote a future event, how can a reader accurately determine our intent? When a word of authority is used inconsistently, courts are left to determine the word’s meaning. To avoid squabbles over ambiguous terms, think through each word of authority that you write and use these words consistently.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

How To Use “That” and “Which,” And Why You Should Care.

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Corporate Law, Grammar, Legal Writing, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on How To Use “That” and “Which,” And Why You Should Care.

Tags

Better Writing Skills, Contract Writing, Grammar, Legal Writing, That, Which, Writing Resources From Scribe Consulting

Using That and Which Correctly, Better Writing Skills, Writing Resources From Scribe Consulting

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w022.html

An easy-to-understand example of the difference between “that” and “which” and why, in legal and business writing, it is important to use each correctly.  It also provides an excellent example of how grammar and punctuation mistakes can dramatically change the meaning of your document. -CCE

For more writing tips on common grammar errors, go to http://www.betterwritingskills.com/writing-tips.html.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

A Different Kind of Employment Contract.

09 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Employment Contracts, Employment Law

≈ Comments Off on A Different Kind of Employment Contract.

Tags

Contract Writing, Employment Law, Hobbit, Legal Skills Blog, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

The Employment Contract Between Bilbo Baggins and the Dwarves, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Blog

http://tinyurl.com/qdt9krl

Louis J. Sirico, Jr., posted this interesting observation about employment contract law. If you have not read the book or seen the movie, The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien, this example is going to sound a bit odd.

Before Bilbo Baggins is hired by dwarves to join a quest to conquer a dragon and take back a mountain full of gold, he must sign an unique employment contract. In the book, Mr. Tolkien wrote a fifty-three word employment contract. It is easy to read and understand.

In the movie, the director wanted something more dramatic. The writer took on the challenge and looked to real contracts including his own. The result is a doozy. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why It’s A Bad Idea To Use Both Words and Digits When Writing Numbers.

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Writing, Numbers

≈ Comments Off on Why It’s A Bad Idea To Use Both Words and Digits When Writing Numbers.

Tags

Adams on Contract Drafting, Contract Writing, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Strunk and White, Writing Numbers

Revisiting Use of Words and Digits to Express Numbers, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/revisiting-use-of-words-and-digits-to-express-numbers/

Some legal writers advocate writing out a number and then adding digits in parentheses. In this post, Ken Adams argues against this practice. If anything, it makes what your writing more verbose and harder to read regardless of the type of document.

Most people do not argue with Strunk and White. Its 3rd edition says to spell out numbers under 100, and use digits for numbers 100 and above. The 4th edition, which came out in 2000, specifically admonishes against spelling out numbers, unless they are used in dialogue. -CCE

More often than not, contract drafters use words and digits to express numbers, as in no later than thirty (30) days after the Closing. That’s a bad idea, for two reasons:

First, it creates clutter that distracts the reader. And the more numbers a contract contains, the greater the distraction.

And second, it violates a cardinal rule of drafting—Thou shalt not state the same thing twice in a contract! Whenever you say the same thing twice, you introduce a potential source of inconsistency. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is It “Shall Not . . . Unless” Or “May . . . Only If”?

09 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Is It “Shall Not . . . Unless” Or “May . . . Only If”?

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contract Writing, Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing

“Shall Not … Unless” Versus “May … Only If” (Updated!), by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mdnboct

One of the privileges of blogging is that it gives you the opportunity to talk utter BS without doing much damage. A case in point is this post, originally published on August 4, 2014.

To recap, the issue was whether one of the two following alternatives was preferable to the other:

Acme shall not sell the Shares unless Widgetco consents.
Acme may sell the Shares only if Widgetco consents.

In an August 6 update I opted for the version with shall not, saying that it avoids the uncertainty inherent in the version using may … only. Well, I’m here to tell you that that’s incorrect, in that both versions incorporate uncertainty.

In the version with shall not, the question is what category of contract language applies if Widgetco consents. Our old friend the expectation of relevance (more about that here) suggests that Acme may sell the Shares if Widgetco consents, but it’s conceivable that it might instead be obligated to sell the Shares if Widgetco consents.

And in the version with may . . . only, the expectation of relevance suggests that Acme may not sell the Shares if Widgetco doesn’t consent, but it’s conceivable that it might instead be obligated to sell the Shares if Widgetco doesn’t consent.

So in terms of uncertainty, there’s nothing to choose between the two. To eliminate that uncertainty you’d have to say the following:

Acme shall not sell the Shares, but it may sell the Shares if Widgetco consents.

(You could say instead Acme shall not sell the Shares unless Widgetco consents, in which case Acme may sell the Shares, but I have a slight preference for the version using except, as it’s shorter.)

Would I go to the trouble of eliminating the expectation of relevance? I think so, but I acknowledge that doing so would be pretty hard-core.

If you don’t want to eliminate the expectation of relevance, which of the two original options would I go for now? Still the version with shall not. The default position is that absent contract restrictions, one may do stuff, so it follows that it’s the prohibition that has teeth; I’d lead with it.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: