Drafting International Contracts is an essential resource for anyone working in international business. The book is a straightforward, easy-to-use tool featuring all the latest trends and developments, including a summary of 25 years of meetings and discussions of the International Contracts Working Group, comprised of professional lawyers, corporate counsel, and academics. It offers a systematic analysis of the main clauses present in international contracts, providing abundant quotations of actual clauses, with critical assessments. The book fosters an understanding of how international contracts are drafted in actual practice. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.

"This book, by a leading international arbitration practitioner, offers suggested language for every option that a drafter of an international arbitration clause may need. Following a succinct assessment of the choice between arbitration and litigation and commentary on the choices among arbitration fora and formats, the author presents an accessible how-to for drafting. While other works offer theory and a smattering of drafting tips, there is no other comprehensive collection of workable language, presented accessibly with easy-to-reference appendices. This book will be a standard reference for both in-house counsel and outside practitioners. This book provides, in an accessible format, clauses that address all the significant issues that contracting parties face, and in any event should consider, when they decide to draft a dispute resolution clause for an international contract. Those who wish immediate access to suggested language may turn directly to the Appendices. Those who wish to understand the analysis that leads to the suggested language should read the text."--Publisher's website.

In the depths of the Great Depression, when foreclosure rates skyrocketed across the United States, more than two dozen states passed mortgage-extension or -adjustment laws to help farmers and homeowners keep their properties. One such statute in Minnesota led to the most important property law case of its time and still casts a long shadow upon constitutional debates and our own era's severe economic downturn. Fighting Foreclosure marks the first book-length study of the landmark 1934 Supreme Court decision in Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, which, by a 5-4 vote, upheld the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act. On the one hand, Blaisdell validated efforts by states to offer legislative relief to citizens struggling to keep their farms and homes. On the other, it caused an outcry among banking interests and conservative legal theorists, who argued that these laws violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution and interfered with our free market system. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes argued that the reasonable and limited nature of the law and the unusual severity of the emergency it addressed placed it firmly within the "police powers" of the states to protect the health and safety of the people. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice George Sutherland argued for a consistent and strict interpretation of the Contract Clause regardless of economic exigency. John Fliter and Derek Hoff provide a concise history and analysis of not only this landmark case and the reasoning behind its sharply divided decision but also of the entire history of the Contract Clause. They trace closely the agricultural crisis, political pressures, and farmer-protest movement that produced the Minnesota law. And their study contributes to scholarly debate about the origins of the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, by which the Supreme Court accepted the New Deal, as well as to public debates about constitutional interpretation and the role that government should play in providing relief to distressed citizens. In the midst of our nation's ongoing suffering from massive foreclosures and bankruptcies, Fighting Foreclosure also offers a potent reminder that the High Court's decisions often revolve around lives at risk as much as abstract legal debates.

Originalism holds that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning at the time it was enacted. In their innovative defense of originalism, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport maintain that the text of the Constitution should be adhered to by the Supreme Court because it was enacted by supermajorities--both its original enactment under Article VII and subsequent Amendments under Article V. A text approved by supermajorities has special value in a democracy because it has unusually wide support and thus tends to maximize the welfare of the greatest number. The authors recognize and respond to many possible objections. Does originalism perpetuate the dead hand of the past? How can originalism be justified, given the exclusion of African Americans and women from the Constitution and many of its subsequent Amendments? What is originalism's place in interpretation, after two hundred years of non-originalist precedent? A fascinating counterfactual they pose is this: had the Supreme Court not interpreted the Constitution so freely, perhaps the nation would have resorted to the Article V amendment process more often and with greater effect. Their book will be an important contribution to the literature on originalism, now the most prominent theory of constitutional interpretation.

The focus of this manual is not what provisions to include in a given contract, but instead how to express those provisions in prose that is free ofthe problems that often afflict contracts.