We all know that the phrase represents and warrants is pointless and confusing, to the point of being plain-old dumb. (What, you’re not aware of that? Then go read my 2015 law-review article.) In theory I’m open to rational discussion on the subject, but no one has been able to make a dent in my reasoning. But that doesn’t mean you should wage a scorched-earth campaign against represents and warrants in favor of states.…

(This is an updated version of a post I did last year.) On 4 November I’ll be doing a day-long “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar in London for UCL Faculty of Laws. (For more information, go here.) I can think of eight reasons why you might want to attend: English contract drafting is dysfunctional. Generally, the prose of contracts leaves a lot to be desired, and no amount of Savile Row swagger can hide that…

In July my law-review article on efforts (aka endeavours) provisions was published. (PDF here.) It’s about as contrarian as the subject matter allows. I beat the tar out of the conventional wisdom that the U.S. dealmaking establishment still clutches like a moth-eaten teddy bear. And I discuss in gruesome detail the preposterous positions adopted by English courts and accepted by English law firms. A bunch of people have clicked on the link for the…

The other day, while researching contract provisions that refer to reliance, I saw the following in a provision waiving jury trial (excuse the all caps; bold added): EACH PARTY HERETO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS BEEN INFORMED BY THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO THAT THIS SECTION 8(C) CONSTITUTES A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT UPON WHICH THEY ARE RELYING AND WILL RELY IN ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. Leaving aside other shortcomings, I wondered about the references to reliance and material…