What does &quot;for avoidance of doubt&quot; mean in a contract? I've seen this phrase added to various sentences in different contracts. A quick Google search also reveals that the phrase shows up in many Terms of Service or Terms of Use agreements. There are some postings online that suggest this phrase is superfluous. For example: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/for-the-avoidance-of-doubt/ Does the phrase "for the avoidance of doubt" have any legal meaning or any effect on the interpretation of a contract? Why is it added on some cases?
The phrase is added to ensure that a portion of the contract is construed as the parties intended. For example, say the terms of a contract already imply some particular term. To make it clear that this is what the parties intended, they may also state that term explicitly. The problem is, if you specify a term a particular way, a party could argue that interpreting another part of the contract to mean that very same thing would render that portion of the contract redundant and therefore it should be interpreted some other way. The phrase "for avoidance of doubt" indicates a part of an agreement that is intended to restate what another portion of the contract (often in conjunction with applicable law) already implies. The phrase is added to ensure that the restatement won't be pointed to as a way to argue that other parts of the contract should be interpreted differently than intended. It is often used where it's superfluous and there it should be avoided because it will actually do the opposite of what's intended -- implying that what it covers is covered elsewhere when it actually isn't, possibly leading to other portions of the contract becoming ambiguous or subject to misintepretation.
Termination is a matter of fact That is, it has either happened, or it hasn’t. Whether it has or hasn’t depends on a multitude of factors including the terms of the contract, the actions of the parties, and communication between them. These factors are so case specific that it is impossible to generalise. Further, within a given case, reasonable parties may differ on if a contract has been terminated, which party initiated the termination, and if that termination was lawful. Usually, these cases involve mutual allegations of repudiation by the other party and rightful termination in response by our side. These issues are likely to be the major ones that the court or tribunal will have to determine. A claim for damages would need to be pursued as part of the overall case but the deadline for raising them is a procedural matter for the court or tribunal. Failing to raise them as an issue in pre-litigation correspondence would not be a bar to raising them in a claim or counter-claim. However, failing to raise them at the earliest opportunity denies the offending party the opportunity to mitigate the damage and, if they can show that there were actions they could have reasonably taken to mitigate but couldn’t because they weren’t informed, then that may reduce or eliminate the damages payable.
I don't know of a specific legal term but such clauses are quite common in contracts which consist of more than one document. The English words "priority", "prevail" and "precedence" have the meaning you want, however, "precedence" runs the risk of being confused with "precedent" which does have a very specific legal meaning. A clause similar to: If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between the English and Japanese language versions of the contract, the English version shall prevail. You need to make very sure that this clause can be translated unambiguously into Japanese!
There Is Little Pressure To Improve Contract Drafting One piece of the puzzle is tradition and habitual writing style. A customary writing style for legal documents evolved over time, some of those conventions have evolved overtime (e.g. &quot;Party of the first part, party of the second part&quot;), others have not. Archaic vocabulary is slowly being weeded out, but again, it is almost never the goal of someone drafting a contract to reduce the reading level of the document. As long as the judge, or other lawyers, know what it means, it is an aesthetic stylistic issue more than it is a substantive issue of importance. Contract drafting is highly decentralized and change happens only when there is a powerful impetus for change. Does this mean that legal writing can't be improved? No. Some lawyers are excellent writers in both contract drafting and in court documents. A well drafted contact can reduce litigation costs when there are disputes. It can also increase compliance with the intent of the parties by preventing disputes over what the contract means from arising in the first place. But most lawyers are mediocre contract drafters, and there is little selective pressure in transactional legal work to weed out their sub-optimal writing styles. Bryan A. Garner, who among other things is the editor of Black's Law Dictionary, is pretty much the leading figure in the United States pushing for a more modern, more readable, less flabby legal writing style. This is exemplified, for example, in his book &quot;Legal Writing in Plain English&quot; (2d ed. 2013). But even then, a lot of the impetus for his stylistic decisions was primarily driven by the need to get across ideas clearly, in a minimum of words, when writing appellate briefs with word limits. This is also the main context in which legal writing is taught in law school and continuing education classes. In contracts, in contrast, in our current era of the word processor, long documents are easy to deliver, and long passages of writing can be cut and pasted. So, the same outside pressures to limit word counts and persuade judges who will read legal briefs cover to cover in order, are not present when drafting contracts. So, the pressure to have a succinct plain language writing style in contracts is less strong. This said, when there has been regulatory pressure to write consumer contracts in a way that an average consumer can understand, it can be done. For example, most credit card agreements are written in very clear plain English with a very low reading level compared to other contracts. But those easy to read credit card agreements are drafted by committees of many lawyers and senior executives, each charging hundreds of dollars an hour, over many meetings over a period of weeks of debate and refinement, and a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars each to draft. The flabby and clunky character of legal writing also reflects client imposed budgetary constraints. It takes much more time and effort, with multiple rounds of rewriting and editing, to write a clean, easy to read contract than it does to write a kludgy one. Lawyers bill by the hour and clients want the job done at a price that they can afford. There is little incentive in contracts that will not be used many times as forms, to take the effort to produce a clean, easy to read final product. This kind of beautifully drafted contract costs much more to draft for the client, but provides little additional legal benefit to the client. Few contracts are ever litigated at all, and when they are, the legal drafting tends to focus on only a handful of key provisions that are carefully drafted. Boilerplate language, which is often less carefully drafted, is very rarely litigated, so the quality of that writing doesn't matter much. Capitalization As far as capitalization goes, I agree with @user6726 that all-caps writing is often required by law. These requirements were based upon the previous legislative assumption that it was more prominent and more likely to be read, which has since been proved to be false empirically. But new empirical discoveries about readability haven't changed the relevant laws requiring certain language in contracts to be &quot;prominent&quot; and in all caps. I would also add that there is a legal writing convention that defined terms have capital letters (although not necessarily all caps), which is a pointer to when one needs to look for a definition, that relaxes the need to put the definitions of capitalized words in the actual sentence where those terms are used. Weird capitalization can facilitate shorter sentences. The Relevant Audience I'd also agree that the primary audience for contract language is often not an unsophisticated non-lawyer consumer. While it's true that the average American reads at about the 5th grade level and can't do algebra, that person isn't the target audience. In the same vein, you don't write scientific journal articles for an audience of the average American. When push comes to shove, written contracts are interpreted as a matter of law by judges who are legally trained, and not a matter left to a jury of non-lawyers to decide. Most business to business contracts are negotiated by lawyers. Most business to business contracts have as additional audiences sophisticated senior managers of business with some limited formal business law training in college, who also have great familiarity with the class of contracts involved. Even in consumer contracts, when consumer protection regulations and statutes do not compel another approach, the intent is frequently a MEGO effect (My Eyes Glaze Over) in the hope that the consumer, who often isn't at liberty to negotiate the terms anyway, won't decide to read the fine print. The only language in a contract that needs to be clear to the consumer is the actionable part like the price that needs to be understood by the consumer to perform it. And, often those parts of a contract are provided in a separate short summary document with the full contract available for future reference but not intended to be routinely read in full. Furthermore, characteristic legal writing styles can convey a sense of importance and official authority. It sounds like it is and is intended to have legal effect. It's the same reason that fictional magical spells are far more often in Latin or Greek or Sumerian than they are in plain English. Language too ordinary conveys the false impression to a client that anyone could write the contract even if legal skill is implicated in drafting it, and can even cast doubt over whether a document was intended to be a legally binding contract in the eyes of a non-lawyer encountering it. Long Sentences, Definitional Clauses, And Pronouns One of the key factors that is identified as making legal writing hard to read is the use of internal definitional clauses within sentences and the use of very long sentences. It is possible to draft without those. But, often including it in the same sentence reflects the drafting lawyer's thought process. It can also reflect a negotiated contract drafting process. Even if an initial draft of a contract has simple sentences clearly laid out, it may be easiest to clarify a bargaining point in contracting negotiations by complicating the sentence in question to make it reflect the other side's preferred interpretation, even if it is stylistically ugly. And, changing that language in a final draft to make the contract look pretty is viewed with the suspicion that a subtle substantive change in the meaning of the contract from the haggled term was intended. As an aside, some contract provisions in hotly negotiated contracts are also sometimes intentionally ambiguous. This is because resolving the ambiguity could result in a fight over a side issue that could bust the deal if each side insisted on their own interpretation. Leaving the term ambiguous allows a judge evaluating a dispute that actually arises, if a dispute even arises over that term (which it often doesn't), in order to do what makes sense under the circumstances instead. Also, lawyers are wretchedly afraid of an adverse party quoting a sentence in a contract without including the related context that clarifies its meaning (e.g. by omitting definitions that are not obvious from the plain language of the contract). Unlike most prose, contracts are rarely read front to back the way you would a court opinion or a newspaper report or a short story. Normally, someone using a contract quotes only the relevant portion of the contract in isolation from the larger entire document. When ideas are broken into separate sentences, lawyers are very worried, rightly or wrongly, that different sentences in a paragraph or section modify each other, rather than being isolated islands of legal propositions. So lawyers are more comfortable when as many connected ideas as possible are all contained in the same sentence in which everything must be related somehow. Lawyers feel more comfortable and secure arguing about the meaning of a single sentence, than they do arguing that a simple short sentence should have a particular meaning based upon the larger context in which it is found. Similarly, lawyers are quite wary about using pronouns that aren't defined terms in the contract, for fear that the person that the pronoun refers to will be incorrectly assigned, even though this is an unnatural way of writing. Common Law Contracts v. Civil Law Contracts Also, as an aside, contract drafting is an area where common law legal drafting styles differ materially from civil law country legal drafting styles (e.g. in continental Europe). This is because in civil law countries there is a great effort made to provide for what would usually be boilerplate language in U.S. contracts as default statutory rules that match the default choices that are usually made in contracts negotiated between third-parties. Far less can be taken for granted in common law countries. A lot of the operative language in a common law jurisdiction contract, including much of it the most difficult to read legalese in contracts, is simply implied in law unless specifically disavowed, in many civil law countries. As a result, civil law country contracts are usually much shorter and more focused on the deal specific terms than a common law jurisdiction contract. A civil law business agreement that runs to five pages might typically take 30-40 pages to write saying exactly the same thing in a common law jurisdiction.
One of the key fundamentals for the formation of a contract is that the parties demonstrate their intention to be legally bound. There are two ways that websites usually use to show that intent by their users: click wrap and browse wrap. With click wrap terms the user explicitly agrees to the terms and creates a binding contract by ticking a box or pressing a button. As far as I am aware there has never been a case where a user has been successful in claiming there was not a contract. With browse wrap terms: For assent to occur the browse-wrap agreement should be conspicuous, state that there is an agreement, and provide where it can be located. it is certainly arguable (IMO with a good chance of success) that the stack exchange browse wrap, with its tiny link embedded among many others at the bottom of the page, is unenforceable. For the circumstances you describe the site tried for a click wrap but due to technical difficulties got a browse wrap. If it can be demonstrated that the user saw the terms or a prominent link to them and continued this would probably be enforceable. Licenses: if the terms contain the grant of a copyright licence then that can be enforced because copyright exists even if a contract doesn't.
One possible reading of this clause is: The tenant is required to pay for the preparation of a forfeiture notice, even if ("notwithstanding that") the forfeiture doesn't actually happen ("forfeiture is avoided")--but the tenant doesn't have to pay for the notice if the forfeiture doesn't happen for the following reason ("avoided otherwise than by"): because the court said so ("by relief granted by the court"). In other words: if the Court says the forfeiture notice is bogus, the tenant doesn't have to pay for it. Otherwise, he or she does.
Primary Theory I suspect there might not be a legal answer to this question. I have always suspected a sort of pseudo-intellectual elitism (or simple preference or carelessness) with passive voice sentence construction in general. I sense license writers have not (yet) escaped this general trend. I would love someone to prove this theory incorrect. But, alas, I doubt it will happen. Alternative Theory But because this is a Law Q&amp;A site, I will advance the following alternative theory. I don't believe it's correct. But I will advance it because it's the only possible explanation I can think of that might be even remotely based on legal reasoning... Maybe they are just basing their construction on the way the law itself is written? For example, if the law says, "Permission must be granted..." Then it would follow that a writer who wants to comply with the law might choose, "Permission is hereby granted..." instead of something like "The authors hereby grant permission..." or, as the OP suggested, "You may..."
Yes Yes Yes However, these are pretty standard contract terms. Many, many terms survive the end of the substantive agreement. For example, terms with respect to ongoing confidentiality, dispute resolution, warranties, termination itself etc. The second is so common it actually has a named legal doctrine: reading down. In the absence of such a clause, if the contract inadvertently exceeds what the law allows, it preserves the contract rather than leaving both parties without contractural protection.