Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> AdamsDrafting
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Corporate & Securities Law
: AdamsDrafting“Represents, Warrants, Covenants and Agrees”
By Ken Adams
I received the following cry of despair from a Canadian reader:
I’m preparing a partnership agreement and have been given precedent to work with. Using MSCD, I have spent some time trying to rework the precedent’s archaic language to make it more readable. It says, several times, “Each of the Partners severally represents, warrants, covenants and agrees with each other Partner that such Partner (a) has the capacity to enter into the agreement, (b) shall ensure that its status shall not be modified,” etc.
I’m not sure how to tackle the wording in bold italics. I’ve looked at four other partnership agreements and the same quadruplet wording appears in various places in each agreement. Is it used for belt and suspenders purposes, or just because no one has any idea what to say? I’ve looked at your book, and I see that you have tackled covenants and agrees to, but it is a bit daunting to read two couplets side by side. And the drafter obviously thought this language was important. What do you recommend I do with it?
Here’s my reply:
The initial question is, what one or more categories of contract language follow “represents, warrants, covenants and agrees”? The example you cite consists of (1) language of representation and (2) language of obligation imposing a duty on the subject of the sentence. In an ideal world, for the former you’d say “Acme represents” and for the latter you’d say “Acme shall.” Your language is clumsy because it jams the two concepts together and also adds redundancy.
Regarding the redundancy, you’ve noted MSCD’s discussion of covenants and agrees to. MSCD also discusses represents and warrants, but click here for a recent blog post that looks at it from a Canadian perspective.
And look at what my book says about joint and several. Several is a liability concept; it doesn’t make sense to have anyone “represent severally.”
I hope this helps!
Full post as published by AdamsDrafting on June 18, 2009 (boomark / email).
Sea Star Agrees $18.5M Settlement in Anti-trust Class Action
Sea Star Agrees $18.5M Settlement in Anti-trust Class Action
AIG Agrees $725 Million Settlement in Pension Funds Class Action
AIG Agrees $725 Million Settlement in Pension Funds Class Action
Zurich Insurance Agrees $455M Settlement in Farmers Class Action
Zurich Insurance Agrees $455M Settlement in Farmers Class Action
Nvidia Agrees $2 Million Settlement of Graphics Chip Class Action
Nvidia Agrees $2 Million Settlement of Graphics Chip Class Action
Space Heaters
Vornado Air Circulation Systems Inc. agrees to $500,000 defective product CPSC fine.
Treo Smartphones
Palm Inc. agrees to class action cash rebates for defective phones.

Warrants: What They Are and What They Mean
INDEED: Really, at this point any CEO who agrees to do business with the government should be fire
5 Steps To Managing Your Money And Your Marriage
Say the right thing: 10 ways to defuse conflict and promote harmony
Because theyre better than you







