“Right, Title, and Interest” – Adams on Contract Drafting

I think it’s time I said something about right, title, and interest, no? You just know that right, title, and interest is a bit of inflated legal phrasing that serves only to make legal prose suitably sonorous. That the three elements are invariably kept in the same order is one sign that their function is incantatory and not […]

Source: “Right, Title, and Interest” – Adams on Contract Drafting

Bryan Garner on “Including But Not Limited To” – Adams on Contract Drafting

Thanks to @traduccionjurid, yesterday I learned of the following tweet by Bryan Garner: Yes. Every contract should define “including” as meaning “including but not limited to.” Then never use longer phr. https://t.co/Oyu44bcs8j — Bryan A. Garner (@BryanAGarner) August 20, 2015 Garner is in a class of his own as a legal lexicographer. And Garner’s Modern […]

Source: Bryan Garner on “Including But Not Limited To” – Adams on Contract Drafting

An Update on “Including But Not Limited To” – Adams on Contract Drafting

In this recent post I wrote about a Bryan Garner tweet on the subject of including but not limited to. Shortly after, Garner posted “LawProse Lesson #226” on the same subject. Since his post offers more detail than did his tweet, I thought I should check it out, but I found that it reflects his unhelpful approach […]

Source: An Update on “Including But Not Limited To” – Adams on Contract Drafting

Using Only Digits to Express All Numbers – Adams on Contract Drafting

I’ve written several posts, most recently here, about why it’s a bad idea to use both words and digits to express a number. This post is about something else relating to numbers: the notion that you should use only digits to express all numbers. I’ve long recommend that you use words for numbers one through […]

Source: Using Only Digits to Express All Numbers – Adams on Contract Drafting