'Tis the week before Xmas and a good time to look back on the topics that we covered in 2018. So have some eggnog (or a nice Pinot Noir), play this Xmas music, and let's reminisce:
>January: we reviewed recent cases proving that in a contract, every word has meaning.
> February: we discussed the best response when you receive an unsolicited product idea from a customer.
>March: we pondered the scenario of whether a disgruntled buyer of a haunted house can sue and get some relief.
>April: we examined the effect of an "immortal soul clause" buried in a website's terms and conditions.
>May: we discovered that mere pressure to sign a contract isn't sufficient to void the contract for duress.
>June: No post - on family business.
>July: We found out what happens when you horse around with non-compete clauses.
>August: No post - on family business.
>September: We determined what you can do about lawyers who use goofy words.
>October: We sussed out whether "efforts" provisions in contracts are worth the drafting effort.
>November: We examined why your accounts payable folks should be familiar with the contractual doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
>December: We explained why, in a contract, a "condition" does not a "promise" make.
Apart from my advocacy of plain language in drafting contracts, my goal with this posts is to discuss a court case or contract law doctrine that is relevant to my target audience: those who work with contracts and would like a better understanding of what they mean.
The sad truth is that all too often business contracts: 1) are relegated to an electronic or physical file cabinet, never to see the light of day unless there's a problem; and 2) contain legal jargon that at worst is meaningless and at best frustrates the reader's understanding of the contract's content, regardless of whether the reader is a layperson, a judge, or a lawyer. In 2019, we'll continue the good fight to change this predicament!