Imagine if you will, you are the founder and CEO of ABC, Co., a small to midsize company that’s been sued for millions of dollars in a breach of contract action. Next imagine that, just before sending the jury out to deliberate, you heard the judge say to them: “It is up to you to decide what ABC, Co.’s obligations were under the contract.” Feeling queasy? Well, here’s the kicker: your company wrote the contract.
Recently, a scenario just like this one played itself out in a Chicago courtroom. How’d it turn out, you ask? Read on. Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under Best Practices, Court Decisions
Tagged as ambiguity, ambiguous, ambiguous language, argue, arguing, benefits of plain language, breach, breach of contract, CEO, Chicago, civil jury instructions, civil trial courts, compensatory damages, contract, contractual obligations, court, courthouse, courtroom, damages, deliberate, everyday language, federal court, Illinois, Illinois Supreme Court, jargon, jury, jury delibertions, jury instructions, jury trial, jury verdict, lawsuit, legalese, midsize company, millions of dollars, motion, motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, Orwell, pattern jury instructions, plain English, plain language, product manufacturer, product testing, small company, state court, sued, term-of-art, testing, trial, verdict
Dan Alexander
dyavil
Matthew Kelly
Paul Wojcicki
Simon Lee