Legal Know-How
Learn more about us
  • Welcome
  • People
  • Recent matters
  • Legal news
  • Testimonials
  • Contact us
  • Secured client access

Don't use "shall" if you can help it

12/11/2012

3 Comments

 
Picture
Leading American authority on good legal writing, Bryan Garner, visited Australia in August 2012 and met with our judges in Sydney and Melbourne. As the editor in chief of Black’s Law Dictionary and the author of many leading works on legal style, our judges would have had a very interesting and dynamic discussion with Garner on legal writing. In a recent article published in the American Bar Association Journal, Garner challenged all lawyers to write shall-less documents. I recently authored an article on this subject matter (when I was Counsel at Allen & Overy’s Banking group). The article appeared in the September edition of the firm’s Australian Banking and Finance Update. Below is an extract of my article. For the full article (and other articles in the September newsletter), contact Allen & Overy.

Drafting lessons learnt from the common law approaches to statutory interpretation

The well-established rules our judges apply to statutory interpretation can help shed some light on why we should abandon all uses of “shall” in modern contracts. (These rules are the golden rule, the literal approach and the purposive approach, which I will not discuss in detail here.) The three key takeaways here are ordinary meaning, intention and purpose. When you draft a contract and want to use “shall”, think carefully. Unless the use of the word satisfies these three tests, abandon the word and replace it with another word.

More reasons for never using “shall”

“Shall” is a chameleon. “Shall” has four meanings in the Macquarie Dictionary and five meanings in Black’s Law Dictionary. It can be used to impose an obligation but it can also be used for other purposes, for example, to express the simple future tense. “Shall” is also not a commonly used word. It is archaic. It is what Shakespeare and Dickens would have used. Black’s Law Dictionary pointed out that only one of the five meanings of “shall” is acceptable under strict standards of drafting – “shall” means “has a duty to”.

Indeed, many people do consider, at least in the traditional use of the word, that “shall” (and “shall not”) indicates obligation, and in comparison, “may” indicates discretion. But this is not always true, as you will see from the case below. And this is precisely why the word “shall” should not be used in modern contracts.

BW Gas AS v JAS Shipping Ltd [2010] All ER (D) 134 (Feb) is a UK Court of Appeal (Civil Division) case. The case considered a bareboat sub-charter of a new vessel that required it to be built in accordance with a building contract. The court found that although the contract provided that the buyer “shall” supply particular items for installation, the contract had not been breached by failure to deliver the vessel with the items installed, as it had not been mandatory for the buyer to supply. Although this case is a UK case and can be limited to its particular circumstances, the confusion created as to whether or not “shall” imposed a mandatory requirement is a very good reason for never using that word.

How to draft a shall-less agreement

Use “must” to express an obligation because the meaning is clear and it is a commonly used word. In Australia, this is the rule invariably applied by judges, and is supported by the Government as well as legal commentators. Similarly, do not use “will”. This word can be used, and often is used, to express the simple future tense. If an alternative to “must” is really necessary, try using “agrees to” or “is required to”.

3 Comments

    About

    Welcome to legal news. This is about legal know-how relevant to lawyers and business people alike.

    Archives

    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    October 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    March 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012

    Categories

    All
    Business Lending
    Case Law
    Credit
    Drafting
    General
    Guarantees
    Intellectual Property
    Knowledge Management
    Legal Practice Management
    Legal Technologies
    Legislation And Regulation
    Personal Property Securities
    Privacy
    SME Q&A Series
    SMEs

    RSS Feed

© 2014 Karen Lee | Legal Know-How
All rights reserved
Information and notices