A Manual of Style For the Drafting of Contracts: Difference between revisions

{{a|plainenglish|}}{{br|A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting}} is such a beautifully ironic title — rather like writing '''{{font|Comic Sans MS}}How to be Cool{{font|georgia}}''' in Comic Sans — that we can’t resist wondering how much more clumsy its title might have been had its author the chutzpah — or the basic sense of irony that he seems to lack — to really push out the boat.  

''A Manual of Style, Concision and/or Brevity in the Drafting of Contract(s) and Non-Contractual Obligations Arising out of or in Connection Therewith'' might have been fun, for example. There’s always the next edition.

We can tease, but [[Ken Adams|Mr. Adams]] ploughs a lonely furrow, single-handedly taking the fight for elegant drafting to his countrymen and women. As he goes, he is by necessity surrounded by attorneys whose favourite language game is complicating simple ideas. The [[efficient language hypothesis]] is a cruel joke. You get the sense Mr. Adams feels it might have been played on him, personally.

 

Mr. Adams has able, if [[tedious]], views on the appropriateness of the word “[[shall]]” in contractual drafting, and can refute all seven possible justifications for a [[successors and assigns]] clause. In a scrape, here is a man you would be glad to have in your corner. Whether he wants to be there or not, we claim him for ours.