SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Common Contract Screw-ups: Key Drafting Insights from University of Houston Law Center

jerom avatar
jerom
28 diapositives · 421 Views · Jul 18, 2014

Join our Contract Drafting Class at the University of Houston Law Center and discover common pitfalls in contract drafting. Learn about issues such as additional signature blocks, pretentious expressions, and effective use of defined terms. Engage in practical team exercises that challenge you to think creatively about contract definitions. Gain insights into the differences between representations and warranties, and understand critical cases that shape contract law today. This course is crucial for anyone looking to refine their drafting skills and avoid costly mistakes.

Common Contract Screw-ups: Key Drafting Insights from University of Houston Law Center - slide 1
01 / 28Common Contract Screw-ups: Key Drafting Insights from University of Houston Law Center
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Common Contract Screw-ups: Key Drafting Insights from University of Houston Law Center
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Contract DraftingClass 10Thurs. Feb 16 University of Houston Law Center D. C. Toedt III

  2. Common contract screw-ups

  3. Common contract screw-ups “7. The contract that has additional signature blocks in [a schedule or exhibit, e.g., a form of deed], and these are signed as well as or instead of the main signature blocks of the contract.” [From “Top 10 howlers when preparing contracts for signature,” by the IP Draughts blog at http://goo.gl/Km6Dw.]

  4. Pretentiousness

  5. Some pretentious expressions How could these be improved? During such time as Customer needs help During the course of Provider’s work Provider will effectuate its obligations The parties will endeavor to agree Provider will forthwith notify Customer

  6. Defined terms

  7. Defined terms – where to put? Team exercise: Write down six places where you might find the definition of a defined term in a contract (careful – try to think “outside the box”)

  8. Introducing a defined term Stark p. 80: “Mechanical Failure” means[definition follows] Adams, MSCD: Mechanical Failurerefers to[definition follows]

  9. Can Stark be improved on? • P. 82, # 15 • P. 83, # 17 • P. 84, # 19 (“Song” example) • Compare with p. 81, # 13 • P. 84, # 20

  10. Which do you like better, & why? Stark p. 87, # 1 Version 1? Version 2

  11. Dell Master Purcha-sing Agrmt (Z&B pp. 236 et seq.)

  12. Representations and Warranties - preview

  13. Buying a used car

  14. Representation (Stark p. 12) • Statement of fact • As of a moment in time • Intended to induce reliance • Justifiable reliance is required for a cause of action

  15. Warranty (Stark p. 13) • Technical definition • A promise that a statement is true • Real world definition • A promise that the maker of a statement will pay damages to the recipient of the statement if the statement isn’t true and the recipient suffers damages • There is no reliance component, nor intent.

  16. Warranty The car is yellow.

  17. Remedies for breach of warranty (Stark pp. 14-16) • Benefit of bargain • Diminution in value • Alt: Cost of paint job? • Incidental damages? • Rental cost, while car is in paint shop • Consequentials? • UCC: If not disclaimed • Damages cap in contract? • Attorneys’ fees?

  18. Remedies for Misrepresentations • Honest or negligent, if material • Avoidance • Restitutionary Recovery • Fraud • Choice between • Avoidance and Restitutionary Recovery and • Damages • Out-of-pocket • Benefit of the bargain • Punitive

  19. Representations Avoidance Punitive damages Warranties No reliance component Benefit of the bargain damages No need to prove defendant’s scienter Trade-offs: Representations versus Warranties

  20. CBS v. Ziff-Davis – sale of magazine division • Rep/warranty re financial statements • Due diligence: Accounting problems • Lawsuit: Misrep. + breach of warranty (really: litigating the price afterwards) • Holding: • No misrep.: Reliance not justified • BUT: Warranty claim succeeded • Parties settled after appellate holding

  21. British Sky Broadcasting v. EDS • Case: http://bit.ly/9bPMbe (468-page PDF) • HTML: http://bit.ly/c3SUZh • Entire-agreement clause • £30MM damages cap • N/A to fraud. misrep. or negl. misrep. • UK judge found EDS exec lied • No contract liability finding

  22. British Sky Broadcasting v. EDS ¶ 841: “Although it is not necessary to establish motive, motive provides support. Joe Galloway was quite clearly anxious to further his career. He was ambitious and to achieve a successful bid with Sky for the CRM Project would provide him with an opportunity to demonstrate his abilities to those in EDS. It was that motive which led him to say that he could achieve the Sky CRM Project in the required timescale when he knew that he had no proper basis for doing so. EDS say that there can be no motive in obtaining a project on the basis of times which cannot be met. I do not think he took that type of long term view. His wish was to be awarded the CRM Project and use that for advancement.”

  23. 211 – No reliance Representations outside this Agreement: None – the parties have specifically negotiated this section. Each party represents and warrants that, in entering into this Agreement, it is not relying on any representation by the other party, other than those set forth herein or incorporated by reference.

  24. Why include no-reliance clause? Vendor: Avoid fraudulent-misrep. claims Customer (silver lining if forced to agree): Identify problems BEFORE they arise

  25. Discovery issues for eitherwarranty or misrep. claim • True value of asset sold • Inspections • Comparables • Expert testimony • Alt: Repair costs • Estimates • Expert testimony

  26. Extra discovery issuesfor misrepresentations • Standard of care (negligence claims): • Past deals, practices, problems – interrog., document production, depositions • Expert witnesses – fees, report review, depositions, trial props, trial prep • Intent (fraud claims): • Email trails, interrog., depositions • Net worth – for punitive damages

  27. Negotiating risk allocation (Stark pp. 17-19) • See Stark’s examples • Flat representation • Unequivocal • Without wiggle room • Qualified representation • Hedged

  28. End of class