Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2014
Abstract
Lawyers and academics often use the term “boilerplate” to refer to standardized non-negotiable contracts that prey upon consumers. But for more sophisticated contracts drafted and negotiated by transactional lawyers, the term refers to those common, usually short, and seemingly innocuous provisions at the end of the contract, often under a heading entitled “general” or “miscellaneous.” While these provisions seem harmless enough, for those transactional lawyers unfortunate enough to see 50 or 100 page contracts the subject of litigation, experience shows that crafty litigators with ample time and will to research and argue the meaning of each word in the contract will claim that notices are defective, implied waivers have been granted, and anti-assignment clauses are invalid. Worse yet they may materialize a previously unknown claimant that sues on a theory of third party beneficiary rights. This article examines the legal ramifications of these beastly boilerplate provisions, how they might inflict a stinging and painful bite, and the means to tame the monsters.
Publication Title
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal
Volume
50
First Page
243
Recommended Citation
Alex Ritchie,
How Contract Boilerplate Can Bite,
50
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal
243
(2014).
Available at:
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/321
Comments
A version of this paper was presented at the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation special institute entitled “Oil and Gas Agreements: Contracting for Goods, Services, and People” and appeared in the institute manual as Paper 6 (Rocky Mt. Min. L. Fdn. 2013).