Contract drafting has thankfully evolved some over the past several years to reduce the amount of redundant, convoluted language. Even still, I receive contract drafts that read like a Shakespearean novel, with references to the last descendent of a king. The law and the lawyers who interpret it continue to move slowly in the realm of contract drafting.
One thing in particular that I find amusing these days is the use of "typography emphasis," or bold, italics, and underline. The need to emphasize certain words, phrases, or sections of a contract has become more and more of a personal preference of the drafter. Some like to bold sections and others like to bold and underline sections, while putting defined terms in bold and quotes. Clarity would likely be the most often cited reason for the differing uses of emphasis; however, I have found that using emphasis in certain types of agreements can actually make for a quite difficult read. There are also certain instances where proper emphasis of words or phrases is crucial for later interpretation (e.g., UCC - "Conspicuous").
In simple one-page agreements that do not involve any language that should be emphasized, I used to still bold all relevant headings, sections, and defined terms. Eventually, I shifted to underlining key aspects of the agreement that needed emphasis. And now, I have resorted to only using capital letters for emphasis where needed.
I have found it leads to a much more visually pleasing document to read and avoids possible confusions from an opposing party. Also, it takes away some of the risks of creating ambiguity with bolding some defined terms and not others within an agreement. While this is a personal preference of mine, it still amuses me that so many different lawyers use all sorts of different emphasis in all their agreements. Bold, italicize, underline, capital letters, quotes, and even different colors. I guess it will always be a way for attorneys to add a personal touch to their contractual masterpiece.
Comments