Longtime readers will know that I have no time for the notion of “tested” contract language—instead of continuing to use confusing contract language because a court has had occasion to attribute meaning to it, I prefer to state meaning clearly.
So instead of relying on caselaw to tell me how to draft contracts, I find caselaw mostly useful for the lessons it offers on how not to draft contracts. I consider what contract language created the confusion that led to a given dispute, and I attempt to draw general lessons from it.
But in addition to caselaw in which the dysfunction is to be found in contract language, there’s also caselaw in which the court either contributes to the confusion or finds confusion where there isn’t any. Here are three posts I’ve published in recent days that discuss three such cases and the lesson to be drawn from each: (keep on reading by clicking the link)