Adams on Contract Drafting

“Human Being” Over “Individual” Is a Legitimate Choice

Ken Adams — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 02:00:16 +0000

In this 2014 blog post and this 2023 blog post, I mull over which is the better choice, individual or human being. Here’s what I say in the 2014 post about individual and person: I find natural person too legalistic to use in contracts. Using human being instead isn’t a sober option. I use individual. Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage says that “individual is best confined to contexts in which ... Read More

The post “Human Being” Over “Individual” Is a Legitimate Choice appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

Critique My “Represents and Warrants” Law Review Article and You Might Win a Signed Copy of MSCD!

Ken Adams — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:27:20 +0000

In this 2020 blog post, I say that no one takes me on in the marketplace of ideas. Nothing has changed in the years since. I’ll spare you any editorializing. Instead, I offer you … a contest! I invite you to critique my article Eliminating the Phrase Represents and Warrants from Contracts, 16 Tennessee Journal of Business Law 203 (2015). I’ll send ... Read More

The post Critique My “Represents and Warrants” Law Review Article and You Might Win a Signed Copy of MSCD! appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

Certainty Is a Ridiculous State, Particularly If the Certainty in Question Is That Mainstream Contract Language Is Righteous

Ken Adams — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:19:52 +0000

This Voltaire aphorism has been doing the rounds on social media: “Doubt is not a very agreeable state, but certainty is a ridiculous one.” In addition to applying to a zillion other circumstances of modern life, it applies to *drum roll* contract drafting! More specifically, it applies to an exchange from years ago that popped up randomly last week when ... Read More

The post Certainty Is a Ridiculous State, Particularly If the Certainty in Question Is That Mainstream Contract Language Is Righteous appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

“Is Defined Herein”

Ken Adams — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 01:17:38 +0000

The phrase is defined herein is never a good sign. First, in the extract below, is defined herein to mean is a bloated version of means. Use means instead. Second, which is defined herein to mean, with or without parentheses, allows you to put a definition in a nonrestrictive clause. If the defined term you’re creating is worthwhile, it would ... Read More

The post “Is Defined Herein” appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

“Agrees With”

Ken Adams — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 01:47:26 +0000

Should I have encountered agrees with earlier than today? Perhaps. But today was the day, so allow me to consign agrees with to oblivion. Where does agrees with occur? Let me count the ways. First, it occurs in the lead-in. No thanks—I’ll stick with The parties therefore agree as follows. Second, it occurs as a redundant dual verb structure in ... Read More

The post “Agrees With” appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

“Intends That”

Ken Adams — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:43:13 +0000

This post is a companion piece to my post on intends to (here). It looks at unhelpful uses of intends that, looks at uses that seem legitimate, and then suggests how all this change the MSCD categories-of-contract-language framework. Compliance One use of intends that is to signal that an arrangement under a contract complies with law, notably tax law. Here’s ... Read More

The post “Intends That” appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

“Intends To”

Ken Adams — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:20:01 +0000

25+ years into this contract-language racket, I asked myself, What’s up with intends to? I intend to answer that question in this post. Let’s start with an example of intends to: PetVivo intends to utilize any proceeds from this offering promptly upon receipt from investors, regardless of the actual number of Units that are sold in this offering. A New ... Read More

The post “Intends To” appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

Dual Verb Structures: “Intends to X and Shall X”

Ken Adams — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:20:32 +0000

I’ve collected a handful of dual verb structures, all of which are bogus. Go here for those blog posts. Here, after a years-long gap, is another one: intend to X and shall X. Here’s an example: The Parties intend to report and, except to the extent otherwise required by Law, shall report, for federal income tax purposes, the Mergers as ... Read More

The post Dual Verb Structures: “Intends to X and Shall X” appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

How Not to Use Enumerated Clauses

Ken Adams — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 20:52:56 +0000

See the accompanying screenshot? It features unhelpful use of enumerated clauses. MSCD recommends using enumerated clauses when you have introductory language followed by a series of parallel clauses and those parallel clauses are long enough, or there are enough of them, that the reader would appreciate having them enumerated, so it’s easier for the reader to distinguish where one clause ... Read More

The post How Not to Use Enumerated Clauses appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.

“Unreasonable Efforts”

Ken Adams — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 23:21:43 +0000

Hot on the heels of my post on material efforts, here are two contract extracts that feature the phrase unreasonable efforts. The first (immediately below) is redundantly tacked on to a reasonable efforts obligation. And generally, using a reasonable efforts standard is more efficient than deploying the double negative involved in expressing that someone doesn’t have to do something unreasonable. ... Read More

The post “Unreasonable Efforts” appeared first on Adams on Contract Drafting.