zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. dctoed+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-08-06 16:35:14
>> You agree to grant and hereby grant

"Hereby grant" means the grant is (supposedly) immediately effective even for future-arising rights — and thus would take precedence (again, supposedly) over an agreement to grant the same rights in the future. [0]

(In the late oughts, this principle resulted in the biotech company Roche Molecular becoming a part-owner of a Stanford patent, because a Stanford researcher signed a "visitor NDA" with Roche that included present-assignment language, whereas the researcher's previous agreement with Stanford included only future-assignment language. The Stanford-Roche lawsuit on that subject went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

[0] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...

replies(1): >>mafuy+cY
2. mafuy+cY[view] [source] 2023-08-06 22:15:25
>>dctoed+(OP)
Yes, but the parent commenter noticed that and wondered about the other part, the "agree to grant" part. Simply "hereby grant" should suffice.
replies(1): >>dctoed+b11
◧◩
3. dctoed+b11[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-06 22:38:28
>>mafuy+cY
> Simply "hereby grant" should suffice.

Not necessarily — in some circumstances, the law might not recognize a present-day grant of an interest that doesn't exist now but might come into being in the future. (Cf. the Rule Against Perpetuities. [1])

The "hereby grants and agrees to grant" language is a fallback requirement — belt and suspenders, if you will.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

[go to top]