Corporate & Securities Law

Addresses That Aren’t So Dependable

By Ken Adams

In contracts, addresses occur in the notices provision. And if a contract doesn’t include a notices provision, usually I’ll include in the introductory clause the address of any individual that’s a party, so as to distinguish that individual from anyone else with the same name; see MSCD 1.49.

But some addresses are more dependable than others. Reader Chris Lemens recently shared with me an address from the notices provision of a contract he’s working on:

52, Ferena Building, 5th Floor
Opposite Fariyas Hotel
Near Colaba Telephone Exchange
Mumbai 400 005
India

And he offered the following observations:

It always amazes me how much I take for granted. Of course there are places in the world where addresses are less clear than landmarks. I’m aware of that, in the abstract, because I read a lot of economics, and there’s an entire literature on how the lack of clearly defined property rights (including the lack of plats and property registries) limits growth in less developed countries. But I’ve not previously encountered in a contract an example of a more improvised approach to addresses. I’m wondering whether I should rethink how parties should give notice in countries where addresses are hit-and-miss.

This reminded me of how on my trip to Oman I was told that addresses are much less reliable than national identification numbers when it comes to information to include in the introductory clause with respect to individuals.

Anyone have any practical experience in dealing with such addresses?

Full post as published by AdamsDrafting on June 12, 2009 (boomark / email).