Skip to main content

View Diary: How to write a "GOOD" Contract (12 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Take caution in using this advice. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, mskitty
    Writing what you amended from the previous contract in the current version is vital and exceptionally aids the recipient in finding the changes and being able to agree with them accordingly.
    For the vast majority of cases, this is bad advice.

    Avoiding ambiguity and confusion is perhaps the single most important aspect of contract drafting. Including language which references a term that is NOT an agreed upon term of the contract is the opposite of that. That's why so few contracts do this.

    "Battle of the Forms".
    Battle of forms is not about contract negotiations. It refers to the conflict that arises when companies use conflicting standard form contracts for offer and acceptance. Much different.
    "Battle of the Forms" as it is known in UK law, until both parties agree on a version of a contract that works best for both.
    Until both agree on a version that works best for both? Why would there be a conflict to begin with if that possibility existed?
    People want to know where things are and what terms they need to be considering, they do not want to know, for example, how you influence or judge other people based on their violations to such terms.
    Oh my God. Is this a joke? Headers and paragraph numbering are more important than knowing the consequences of breach?

    People just don't want to know about what happens if they break the agreement?

    Look, you MUST stop giving legal advice in diaries, and everywhere else for that matter.  I don't normally speak up about these things, but I read your diary "Threats are not crimes" and you did it there as well.

    On some points you're just flat out wrong, and on others the advice is questionable at best. These matters that seem so simple and obvious to you are just not as clear cut as you think.

    It's one thing to write about your experiences with the law. I encourage that. But presenting it as legal advice ("How to...") is dangerous. Please stop doing this.

    Source: I'm a lawyer

    •  Ditto. IAAL. He may be a solicitor. Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

      But good heavens, he can't write - he doesn't misspell but his proofreading doesn't catch errors in grammar, verb case, or missing words, and if he can't hold an entire phrase in his mind at one time, how could he possibly keep all the terms of a business contract correlated in his mind long enough to write an internally consistent enforceable contract?

      •  My impression is that he's being sincere (0+ / 0-)

        and just wants to engage others on topics in which he is interested. Business and law are decidedly political topics, so I don't disagree with the idea of it, but I think he's going about it the wrong way.

        Fortunately, with a few exceptions here and there, contract law is pretty well settled and fairly consistent across jurisdictions. That means there are a lot of example materials available, so if he needs to write one, help is there.

        As far as grammar, etc., I can actually forgive those mistakes pretty easily if the content is good. If I'm engaged in something good, I almost don't even notice it.

        •  I didn't go to college for nothing (0+ / 0-)

          At college I recently did my exams in a Level 3 Certificate for Law & Practice (English Law) and I am in the process of completing a two-year vocational degree in Business, which is a BTEC Level 5, so I would understand if you believe otherwise.

          If you think Contract law is consistent between Jurisdictions, well... to some extent, yes. When I was looking at standard form contracts that I was going to consider when signing to Versilian Studios (music production), the founder gave me three, and neither of them I actually enjoyed reading, and most of the time I actually do enjoy reading legal documents.

          Obviously if any document is not well structured, I'm not going to read it. The first standard form contract in particular had no text justified, it didn't use the number system Microsoft Word uses, and there were no Headings between certain sections which made all the terms all jumbled up.

          Take a look at Terms of Service, which is pretty much on any website, and is effectively a contract you virtually sign when visiting any website, and tell me that is poorly structured just because there are Headings in the way; personally I find that to be good practice.

          UK Legislation has specific standards when that is written: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

          Take a look at any law and tell me that is poorly structured... Because most of my advice comes from reading these laws, not writing them. While it is not in the scope of a contract, I would have thought almost every legal document must be structured with that same kind of consistency to make such legal documents easy to read.

          As you said

          contract law is pretty well settled and fairly consistent across jurisdictions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site