ChiefNode

Appeals votes with "intent" not "text"

Hey, no more worries about careful drafting. If you're in the 9th Circuit Court, the court will read what you intended, not what you wrote.

Now, to my non-legal mind, this is not that radical. Folks look at the Congressional hearings to learn "legislative intent" of a law, rather than just looking at the core "law" when the argue about the law, or try to enforce it. With the length & complexity of legal documents these days, it does not seem like a radical concept that contracts have errors in them. I find it helpful to include a "background" section in a contract (where possible) to help such interpretation -- although this was in contracts primarily for the "lay" people (eg people who do not read contracts for a living).

What should we start putting in contracts to enable such "helpfulness" by the courts? Or will the Supremes overturn our beloved 9th circuit once again?

posted by Dana Bostrom @ 09:51