The Ambiguous Contract Clause
A freelance translator, Marco, signed a short contract with a publisher. One clause reads: 'The Translator shall deliver the completed manuscript no later than 30 June, and the Publisher shall pay 50% of the fee within 14 days of delivery, with the balance payable upon acceptance.' Marco delivered the manuscript on 28 June. On 10 July the publisher paid 50%. On 20 July the publisher emailed: 'We are still reviewing the manuscript; acceptance is pending.' Marco believes he is owed the balance now. He also notices that the contract uses 'shall' in the payment clause but 'may' in a separate clause about requesting revisions. He asks you to explain the grammar of obligation in his contract before he replies.
1. Explain the difference between 'shall,' 'may,' and 'upon acceptance' in this contract, and how each affects Marco's position.
Read the worked answer
'Shall': In contractual drafting, 'shall' conventionally creates a mandatory obligation. 'The Publisher shall pay 50% within 14 days of delivery' means the first payment is required, not optional. The publisher complied: delivery was 28 June, and payment on 10 July is within 14 days. So that obligation is satisfied.
'Upon acceptance': This is a condition, not a time limit. The balance becomes payable only when acceptance occurs. Acceptance has not occurred, because the publisher says review is pending. Grammatically, 'upon acceptance' ties the payment obligation to a future event. Until that event happens, the obligation to pay the balance has not been triggered. Marco's belief that he is owed the balance now does not follow from the clause.
'May': The separate clause uses 'may' for revisions, which signals discretion rather than obligation. The publisher is permitted to request revisions but is not required to. The contrast is instructive: the drafter used 'shall' where payment is mandatory and 'may' where conduct is optional. That contrast supports reading 'shall pay ... upon acceptance' as a real obligation that is simply conditional.
Practical implication: Marco's strongest point is not that the balance is overdue, but that 'acceptance' is undefined and the publisher has given no timeline. He can reasonably ask for a defined review period or a statement of what acceptance requires.
2. Rewrite the payment clause to remove the ambiguity, and explain each change you make.
Read the worked answer
Revised clause:
"The Translator shall deliver the completed manuscript no later than 30 June. The Publisher shall pay 50% of the fee within 14 days of delivery. The Publisher shall pay the remaining 50% within 30 days of delivery, unless the Publisher has notified the Translator in writing of specific revisions required under clause [X] before that date. If such notice is given, the balance shall be payable within 14 days after the Translator delivers the revised manuscript. 'Acceptance' means the Publisher's written confirmation that the manuscript conforms to the agreed specification, or the expiry of 30 days after delivery without written notice of revisions, whichever occurs first."
Explanation of changes:
- Fixed deadline for the balance. 'Upon acceptance' is replaced by 'within 30 days of delivery,' so payment no longer depends on an undefined event.
- Defined trigger for withholding. The publisher can delay the balance only by giving written notice of specific revisions before the deadline. This prevents indefinite review.
- Defined 'acceptance.' The clause now says what acceptance means, including a deemed-acceptance rule if no revisions are notified. This closes the gap that let the publisher say 'review is pending' indefinitely.
- Consistent modals. Every obligation uses 'shall'; the only permission ('may') is removed from the payment path, so discretion cannot be read into payment.
- Revision path preserved. The revision clause still operates, but it now has a clear effect on timing rather than creating an open-ended condition.