<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" >
   <channel>
    <atom:link href="http://lawbuild.webnode.com/rss/legal-drafting.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
      <title><![CDATA[Legal drafting - ]]></title>
      <link>http://lawbuild.webnode.com</link>
      <language>en</language>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:00 +0100</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:00 +0100</lastBuildDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Legal drafting]]></category>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      <generator>Rubicus v2.0</generator>
      <managingEditor><![CDATA[david.lewis@lawbuild.co.uk (David Lewis)]]></managingEditor>
      <webMaster><![CDATA[david.lewis@lawbuild.co.uk (David Lewis)]]></webMaster>
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Pursuant to the provisions]]></title>
         <link>http://lawbuild.webnode.com/news/pursuant-to-the-provisions/</link>
         <description><![CDATA[I feel a rant coming on.  This time it’s a reprise of  my long-standing obsession about the   prolixity of legal drafting.  The days when lawyers were paid by the  folio are long past.    (A folio, by the way, was 72 words; don’t ask me why.)&#160;  So why double  the length of    every clause for the sake of it?
For those legal draftsmen who need persuasion, I’m  not proposing to give examples –    just a practical solution which  you can apply using your  word-processor’s “find and   ...]]></description>
         <pubDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:00 +0100</pubDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="true">http://lawbuild.webnode.com/news/pursuant-to-the-provisions/</guid>
         <category>Legal drafting</category>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Under and in accordance with the provisions of ...]]></title>
         <link>http://lawbuild.webnode.com/news/under-and-in-accordance-with-the-provisions-of-/</link>
         <description><![CDATA[Acting for  a developer on one of his projects, I  came across a lengthy and  obscure clause in an appointment  drafted by his architects (or, more likely, their  solicitors).&#160; I would  describe it as a “bespoke”  draft, because it didn’t come from any  standard precedent that I’m aware of.&#160; As my eyes glazed over, I read:

It is not intended that the  Architect should in  any way be responsible to check or verify anything which it  is not  within the normal competence of a prudent...]]></description>
         <pubDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 18:11:00 +0100</pubDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="true">http://lawbuild.webnode.com/news/under-and-in-accordance-with-the-provisions-of-/</guid>
         <category>Legal drafting</category>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
