Hey buddy, need any prolixity?

Another of Carnegie’s Halls, this time in his birthplace of Dunfermline, Scotland

It was his own fault.  He shouldn’t have given in to temptation.  IP Draughts saw the question on Twitter from Alison Frankel.  She is interviewing Bryan Garner today, as part of a larger Thomson Reuters event that includes an interview with him and Scalia J at the Carnegie Hall in New York tomorrow, about their book, Reading Law.

The question was: “I’m interviewing Black’s Law editor, Bryan Garner Monday for Reuters. Tweet me questions you want me to ask. (no Posner stuff please!)”

IP Draughts asked: “Why does the US legal profession use 10 words when 1 will do, in contract drafting?”  As a diligent lawyer (but perhaps not a Twitter expert) he followed this question up with some further tweets, citing as evidence some IP assignment wording that he has seen more than once, with variations, in US templates:

A grants, bargains, sells, conveys, assigns, sets over and delivers the Trademarks to B.

Alison Frankel

Why, IP Draughts asked, doesn’t this wording omit “grants, bargains, sells, conveys, sets over and delivers” and simply use the verb “assigns”.  So far, IP Draughts’ original tweet has been re-tweeted 4 times, and favourited twice, prompting Ms Frankel to respond: “Okay, okay. Promise to ask Bryan Garner why US lawyers are so (needlessly?) prolix”

The irony is not lost on IP Draughts that his 16 word question has been reduced to 6 or 7 words in Ms Frankel’s redrafting.

Bryan Garner has already provided an answer to the question in another tweet: “…because lawyers are overcautious, lazy & unskillful.”  Another twitterspondent, Ryan Kellus Turner, has opined: “Similar to the breeding of pit bulls, tradition and training”.

IP Draughts looks forward to reading whether the question is asked, and what the answer may be.

Meanwhile, here is an answer to the age-old question (and joke), how do I get to the Carnegie Hall?

2 Comments

Filed under Contract drafting

2 responses to “Hey buddy, need any prolixity?

  1. Although it may grieve our reader(s) in Dunfermline, I have to agree with you.

  2. That’s how to get to *a* Carnegie Hall. The joke has the correct answer on how to get to *the* Carnegie Hall, which, in deference to the picture of Davros in your earlier post, must be acknowledged as the definite article.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s