The use of passive voice has three drawbacks. First, the use of the passive voice and the inclusion of an auxiliary officer unnecessarily add a few more words. Second, the use of the passive voice and the omission of Agent By mask who the actor is. And third, the passive voice disrupts the normal subject-verb-verb-object order of a sentence. These disadvantages apply to any form of writing, but the issue of contract prose is particularly important – the consequences of concealing who the actor is can be dramatic. In The Prose of the Treaty, you should always use the active voice, unless it is clear that the passive voice represents an improvement. Here is another example that one of my penn-law students recently showed me: after the closing acme, it remains bound by Article 6 of the shareholders` pact. Yes, it is in the passive voice, but I do not see the point in saying instead, after Article 6 of the shareholders` pact will continue to engage. The reader is more interested in Acme than in Article 6 of the Shareholders` Pact, so It is appropriate to place Acme first.

Although the active voice is generally better, the passive voice makes sense in the following situations: Personalize! A method of drying up contracts, the dust being intended to “impersonalize” the provisions of the treaty. Impersonal phrases can be recognized by sentences as he agreed. Often this sentence is superfluous because it would be followed by a kind of A, which is sufficient and clear. If this is not the case, the actor (i.e. the debtor of the undertaking) is probably absent. Similar examples, for which the debtor may not be clear, begin with the agreement of the parties. Similarly, if possible, obligations and other provisions should be written in the singular number and in the contemporary form. Instead of the parties immediately inquiring about the occurrence of force majeure events, it is best to write to a party that immediately informs the other party of the force majeure situation.

And of course, the active voice is active — it makes our writing more dynamic and energetic. For these reasons, it is usually best to write in an active voice – and rewrite all passive phrases to make them active. Nominalization. Names are more tiring to read than verbs. “Active phrases” tend to form “unloaded” structures that, in the passive, would be covered by subversives. A verb gives a sentence to its plot, while a name places the reader out of context. This means that a text also becomes more alive in the active voice. The active voice not only holds an easier sentence, it also tends to make the sentence clearer. Lawyers are well placed to name verbs: in the eyes of the lawyer, a shareholder does not decide, but takes or makes a solution; A buyer does not pay, but makes a payment; A party does not provide written information, but issues a written notification; a service provider does not act appropriately, but takes appropriate action.