Lawyers...where do you put your definitions

[Anonymous]

God, I know, hard to think of a more boring question. But I see it so many ways in contracts and I can't find a convention. If you are defining a document within a contract do you:
1. ABC Document, dated January, 1, 1989, which sets forth the blah blah blah (the "ABC Document").

2. ABC Document (the "ABC Document"), dated January, 1, 1989, which sets forth the blah blah blah.

3. ABC Document, dated January, 1, 1989 (the "ABC Document"), which sets forth the blah blah blah.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

First of all, this is an odd venue for this type of question ...
But I do it like #3, as long as the document is clearly defined by the preceding language. Not #2 because you haven't defined the document with enough specificity when you insert the defined term. Conversely #1 is a bit confusing be ause there is too much description before you inserted the defined term, although you may need to do it like this if option #2 is not clear.

[Anonymous]

#2. If you are going to define the term, it should go directly after the term you are defining.

[Anonymous]

Unless the date is part of the definition of the term (like, there are three depositions taken on different dates), I'd probably write it like #2. But #3 is okay. #1 is too far away.

[Anonymous]

No respectable Big Law person would accept #2. I would go for # 3 as the best but there might be instances where #1 might be acceptable if additional details would help the definition. Former Big Law corporate associate here . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No respectable Big Law person would accept #2. I would go for # 3 as the best but there might be instances where #1 might be acceptable if additional details would help the definition. Former Big Law corporate associate here . . .

PP above here. Whatever you do, don't use "hereinafte referred to as"' if you use that you should consider clawing your eyes out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No respectable Big Law person would accept #2. I would go for # 3 as the best but there might be instances where #1 might be acceptable if additional details would help the definition. Former Big Law corporate associate here . . .

PP above here. Whatever you do, don't use "hereinafte referred to as"' if you use that you should consider clawing your eyes out

BigLaw litigation associate chiming in: #3. Based on my practice and the contract-based litigation that keeps me busy.

[Anonymous]

Either #2 or #3 would work, depending on the situation.

[Anonymous]

#3. Also biglaw litigation. #2 would be ok.

Not #1.

[Anonymous]

Generally, I feel like the date of the document is part of the document's description. So I would go with #3.

[Anonymous]

#3, but as a technical matter, if you are going to be calling it "the ABC Document in the remainder of the document, the word "the" should also be in the quotes. Also, more old school than me, but people sometimes still say (hereinafter referred to as "the ABC Document").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God, I know, hard to think of a more boring question. But I see it so many ways in contracts and I can't find a convention. If you are defining a document within a contract do you:
1. ABC Document, dated January, 1, 1989, which sets forth the blah blah blah (the "ABC Document").

2. ABC Document (the "ABC Document"), dated January, 1, 1989, which sets forth the blah blah blah.

3. ABC Document, dated January, 1, 1989 (the "ABC Document"), which sets forth the blah blah blah.

Thanks!

I suggest you stick yours in your briefs

[Anonymous]

3 but that clause should be two separate sentences. Periods cost the same as commas so no need to skimp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3 but that clause should be two separate sentences. Periods cost the same as commas so no need to skimp.

Except that the first part of the sentence is only a clause, not a complete sentence. The use of commas is correct in this case. Periods only cost more if they are wrong...

[Anonymous]

God, this thread illustrates why I got out of the legal profession!