Lexico-semantic characteristics of business letter correspondence, Детальна інформація

"Understanding" It is  a  dangerous  word.  If  you  mean agreement you  ought  to  say  so.  If  you  view  of  affairs that there is no agreement,  "understanding" as a noun suggests the opposite or comes close to it.  .it stands,  in fact, as a monument to unsatisfactory compromise.  The  softness of  the word conjures  up  pleasing  images.  "In  accordance with our understanding..." can be interpreted in a number of ways.

"Effect" Here  is  a   little   word   which   uses   are insufficiently praised.    Such   a   phrase   as   "We   will produce..."  is inaccurate,   because   the  work   will    be subcontracted and   the  promise-maker  technically  defaults. Somebody else does the producing. Why not say "We will produce or cause to be produced..."?  This is in fact often said,  but it jars the ear.  Accordingly "We  will  effect  production..." highlights the point with greater skill.

"Idea" This word is bad for your own  side  but  helpful against others.  Ideas as such are not generally protected  by law. If you  submit  something  to  a  company with any hope of reward you must find better phrasing than "my idea".  Perhaps, "my format"  or  possibly  "my  property" is more appropriate. Naturally, if you  can  develop  an  idea  into  a  format  or protectable property,  the  more  ambitious  phrasing  will be better justified.

"As between us" It is useful,  because people are  always forgetting or   neglecting   to  mention  that  a  great  many interests may  be  involved  in  what  appears  to  be  simple dialogue. "I reserve control over..." and "You have the final power of decision over..." sound like  division  of  something into spheres,  but  frequently  "I" am in turn controlled by my investors and "You" - by a foreign parent company,  making the language of division inaccurate. Neither of us really controls anything, at least ultimately.

Thus  it  will  be  useful  to say, "As between us, I control..." and so on.

"Spanning" Time  periods  are  awkward  things: "...for  a period commencing August,1 and  expiring  November,15..."  is clumsy; "...from  August,1 to November,15..." is skeletal when informing how long a contract obligation endures.

But  during  particular time  periods  one  may be reporting for work,  for example, three days out of every five, or doing something else that is within but not completely parallel to the entire time period involved.

A happy solution is the word "Spanning". It goes this way:

"Throughout the period spanning August,1 - November,15 inclusive you will render services  as  a   consultant three days out of every five."

It will  be  useful to put "inclusive" at the end for without it you may lose the date, concluding the period being spanned.

"Negotiate in Good Faith"  The  negotiators  have  worked until late at night,  all points but one have been worked out, the contract will never be signed without resolution  of  some particular impasse.  What is there to do?

Agree to "Negotiate in Good Faith" on the disputed point at  later  time. This  is done frequently,  but  make no mistake about the outcome. The open point remains open. If it happens to be  vital  you  may have no  contract at all.  "Negotiate in Good Faith" is one of those evasions that must be used sparingly. At the right time it prevents collapse, at the wrong time it promotes it.

"Confirm" It suggests, of course, that something has been agreed upon before. You are writing now only to make a record of it. "I write to confirm that you admit  substantial  default  in delivery" Frequently we encounter it in ordinary correspondence: "Confirming your order", "Confirming the main points of our agreement", and so on.

"Furnish" It is a handy word which  usefulness  lies  in the avoidance  of worse alternatives. Suppose you transact to deliver a variety of elements as  a package.

"Deliver"  leaves out, even  though  it  may  well  be implied,  the preliminary purchase or engagement of these elements, and at the other end it goes  very far in suggesting responsibility for getting the package unscathed to where it belongs.

Alternatives also  may go wrong,  slightly,  each with its own implications.

"Assign" involves legal title;  "give" is  lame  and  probably  untrue; "transmit" means  send.

Thus  each word misses some important - detail or implies unnecessary things.

"Furnish"  is  sometimes useful when more popular words fall short or go too far. It has a good professional ring to it as well:

"I agree to furnish all of the elements listed on Exhibit A annexed hereto and made part hereof by incorporation."

Who is  responsible for non-delivery and related questions can be  dealt  with  in  separate  clauses.

"Furnish"  avoids jumping the  gun.  It keeps away from what ought to be treated independently but fills up enough space  to  stand  firm.

The word is good value.

"Right but Not  Obligation"  One  of  the  most  splendid phrases available. Sometimes the  grant  of  particular rights carries with it by implication a duty to exploit them. Authors, for example,  often feel betrayed by their publishes, who have various rights "but do nothing about them." Royalties decrease as a result; and this situation, whether or not it reflects real criminality,  is repeated in variety  of  industries  and court cases. Accordingly it well suits the grantee of  rights to make  clear at the very beginning that he may abandon them. This possibility is more appropriately dealt with in  separate clauses reciting the consequences. Still, contracts have been known to  contain  inconsistent  provisions,  and  preliminary correspondence may  not  even  reach the subject of rights. A quick phrase helps keep you out of trouble: "The Right but  Not Obligation". Thus,

"We shall have the Right  but  Not  Obligation  to  grant sublicenses in Austria"("But if we fail, we fail").

Even this magic phrase has its limitations  because  good faith may require having a real go to exploiting the rights in question. Nevertheless "Right but Not Obligation" is useful, so much so   as  to  become  incantation  and  be  said  whenever circumstances allow it. I the other side challenges these words, it will   be  better  to  know  this  at  once  and  work  out alternatives or finish up the negotiations completely.

"Exclusive" It’s importance in contract English is  vast,  and its omission   creates  difficulties  in  good  many  informal drafts. Exclusivity as a contract term means that somebody  is -barred from dealing with others in a specified area. Typically an employment may be exclusive in that the employee  may  not work for  any  one else,  or a license may be exclusive in the sense that no competing licenses  will  be  issued.

Antitrust problems cluster  around  exclusive  arrangements but they are not all automatically outlawed.

It follows that one ought to specify whether or    not   exclusivity   is   part   of   many transactions. If not,  the  phrase  "nonexclusive"  does  well enough. On  the  other hand,  if a consultant is to be engaged solely by one company,  or a distributorship awarded to nobody else except  X,  then  "exclusive"  is  a  word  that deserves recitation. "Exclusive Right but Not Obligation" is an example that combines  two  phrases  discussed  here.

The  linking of concepts is a  step  in  building  a  vocabulary  of  contract English.