ContractsProf Blog

Editor: D. A. Jeremy Telman
Valparaiso Univ. Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, June 12, 2006

Debunking "Tested" Language

Kenneth_adams Contract lawyer and adjunct Penn law professor Ken Adams has a great post over at his AdamsDrafting blog on the fondness for "tested" contract language, in preference to drafting new, explicit language.  He does a nice job of filleting the argument for such "tested" phraseology in a lot of cases.

Just to pile on, there are two other potential problems: (a) the likelihood that a court will later change its mind about what that language means when it surveys the landscape again after a few years, and (b) the likelihood that a court will let in parol evidence (see the previous post!) to show that these two particular parties really, really meant something different than what other people meant when they used the same language.  That latter risk is much more formidable if the parties have used a piece of complex off-the-shelf boilerplate that if they wrote their own explicit language.

Adams, incidentally, is the author of a popular book on the subject, called A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting.

[Frank Snyder]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2006/06/debunking_teste.html

Commentary | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d835638e5569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debunking "Tested" Language: