Contract Review Strategies and Best Practices with Ken Adams

Reviewing contracts can be more of a burden than drafting. Let's discuss!
Join Ken Adams, the internationally recognized authority on the building blocks of contract language, as we explore contract review strategies and best practices.
If you draft the contracts for, say, ten different deals of a certain kind, each time it’s just a matter of your making suitable adjustments to your template. But if the counterparties are responsible for preparing the contracts, you would be faced with reviewing ten different and unfamiliar drafts-a more burdensome task.
In this webinar, Ken Adams discusses the two aspects of reviewing the other side’s draft contract-making sure it’s clear and making sure it reflects the transaction as you understand it. To illustrate these general principles, he considers examples drawn from draft confidentiality agreements. He also considers the benefits of automated review of draft contracts, which can act as an extra set of eyes.
About Ken Adams
Ken Adams is recognized internationally as the leading authority on the building blocks of contract language. His book A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting (4th ed. 2017), published by the American Bar Association, has sold tens of thousands of copies. Since 2006 he has maintained the widely read blog Adams on Contract Drafting. And he conducts public and in-house “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminars internationally. He’s also an advisor to LegalSifter, a company that combines artificial intelligence and contracts expertise to help with review of the other side’s draft contracts.

[@CharlesJSmith-kc3lw]

Dang, I’m two years late to this party but have to say I always love listening to the man, the myth, the legend-Adams.

[@LawInsidershow]

It’s an evergreen party! Glad you found us.

[@aarupmathur4566]

What should we write in the place of thereof to reduce ambiguity??

[@odinclan]

My training is:
- Parties "shall" (as in duty to do something)
- Representations are facts of past/current condition
- Warrants are facts of future condition

[@smadaak]

Hi. What your training happens to be is less relevant than what analysis suggests. In my law review article on "represents and warrants," I explain that the timeframe rationale you mention doesn't make sense.

[@odinclan]

In Texas, "time is of the essence" has case law that it negates "reasonable" time frames and mandates strict compliance with contract deadlines.

[@smadaak]

I look to caselaw mostly for guidance on how not to draft; in other words, what usages are confusing. I don't look to caselaw to tell me how to draft, as courts trying to make sense of confusing contract language have little to offer regarding how to draft clearly. That applies to "time of the essence"; see MSCD or this ancient blog post: www.adamsdrafting.com/time-is-of-the-essence/.

[@wilfredodavidnunezgonzalez4767]

Excelent video!

[@videom1]

Excellent

[@Vanguardclass]

29:10
4 my reference

[@glenanstine8319]

Andy Dick teaches contracts?

[@VRCrepairman]

7:00
21:00
24:00