0

In legal documents you often find stuff like this:

Lorem ipsum.

I ______________ will do ______________ by the date __________________.
Until then, ________________ will be the contact point for ______________,
herein after called ______________.

Lorem ipsum.

If you fill it in it might look like this:

I _Foo__________ will do _Bar__________ ("The project") 
by the date _Baz______________. Until then, _Hello____________ will 
be the contact point for _World________, herein after called "Client".

I am wondering if, instead of doing this sort of "fill in the blank" style, you can just basically have an index of all the fill-in-the-blank values. So the whole document might look like this.

Project Brief

<Date>

Inputs

Provider: Foo
Project: Bar
Project due date: Baz
Contact: Hello
Client: World

Article 1

The Provider will do The Project by The Project Due Date.
Until then, The Contact will be the contact point for The Client.

I am wondering if you are allowed to do this in legal documents, or if there is an unspoken rule/requirement that you need the fill-in-the-blank style.

Lance
  • 769
  • 6
  • 14
  • Please do not use codeblocks for emphasis or highlighting. Quoteblocks should be used to contain quoted content. –  Dec 23 '18 at 03:51
  • 1
    This is common in Australia, and probably in other jurisdictions too. The part which you have called ‘Inputs’ is often referred to as a ‘schedule.’ – sjy Dec 24 '18 at 07:26
  • Awesome, glad to hear it is used somewhere. Wondering why it is called a schedule, don't get the meaning of that word in this context. – Lance Dec 24 '18 at 07:33

1 Answers1

2

"Legal document" isn't a special and well-defined category. The above simply provides information and there is nothing that the courts can enforce. Supposing that the intent was to create an actual contract where A promises to do B and C promised to do D in exchange, they you (maybe) have a contract.

The ritual language of contracts is not strictly necessary. Courts go to great lengths to maintain contracts, so if there is a reasonable way to interpret the document as a contract, the courts will do so. So

A=Tim
B=Jim
C=Wash B's dog
D=Pay $20 to A
A promises to B in exchange for B doing D

can be reasonably interpreted and enforced. It's just a twisted way to say "Tim promises to wash Jim's dog in exchange for Jim paying Tim $20".

Perhaps your example could be interpreted as part of an existing contract, an addendum that specifies particulars such as who the contact person is (as mandated by some clause of the contract).

user6726
  • 214,947
  • 11
  • 343
  • 576
  • Awesome, wondering why it's not done like this. Maybe just convention then. – Lance Dec 23 '18 at 03:08
  • Please do not use codeblocks for emphasis or highlighting. Quoteblocks should be used for showing quoted content. –  Dec 23 '18 at 03:51