That’s the title of my latest London Free Press article. I thought Slaw readers might find the article interesting. Since my arrangement with the newspaper does not allow me to republish it for a period of time anywhere but on my own blog, you can read it on my blog, or on the Free Press site, or on the Canoe technology news page (although this weeks article is not yet there at the time I write this.)
The gist of the article is that a UK judge was very critical of the drafter of an agreement, accusing him/her of just using boilerplate without thinking about what it should say, or perhaps not even understanding the subject matter.
In part my article says:
It’s easy to take standard language, templates, precedents or boilerplate, and put together an agreement. To create an agreement that properly reflects the arrangement, however, requires the drafter to understand and think about the situation, adjust the language to fit, or write new language.
In other words, the ability to tailor a standard or precedent agreement or clauses to fit the specific needs of a particular agreement is far more valuable than the standard agreement itself. A well-drafted document might take a bit of time and money to create, but a poorly-drafted document could potentially cost millions.