The majority of today`s leases, contracts and legal forms are sprinkled with the word shall. Shall is a word loved by many, but it may be time to get away from Shall. The use of is intended to lead the parties on the long and arduous path of litigation. Although shall has been used as a word for generations to create a mandatory obligation, the word actually contains layers of ambiguity. Should be interpreted in such a way that it must, can, willing or even should. In countless cases, shall is used throughout the document, but with multiple interpretations.1 I have already written in this blog why I recommend using it in a disciplined manner instead of throwing it under a bus. Discussion of this topic plays an important role in Chapter 2 of MSCD as well as in my October 2007 NYLJ article. It is a belated answer, but I happen to be looking at the difference between should, wants and must now. What I find is the following, according to simple English: Oxford dictionary. It is interesting to note that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) makes another distinction: the traditional use of shall and will dictates that in the formation of the future form will be used with the first person I and us, while will with the second or third person you, he, she, she and they should be used. When one emphasizes a determination or command (including commitments?), the rule is reversed: the will is used with me and us; and become with you, him, her, her and them. This distinction is broadly consistent with the above distinctions. In contracts, the distinction made by the OED becomes visible in letters of agreement (in which the parties are often referred to as you and us; as opposed to contracts where the parties act as „he” or in some way as a third party).
The pronunciation of will is /wɪl/, and that of won`t is /woʊnt/. However, Shall has different weak and strong pronunciations: /ʃəl/, if not underlined, and /ʃæl/, if underlined. Shan`t is pronounced /ʃɑːnt/ in England, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.; in North America (if used), it is pronounced /ʃænt/, and both forms are acceptable in Australia (due to the single course of the trap-bad split). • „Will” refers to a situation in which a person is willing, determined, or makes a strong effort to perform a particular action. Fowler wrote in his book The King`s English, regarding the rules of use of Shall vs. Will, the comment „the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature in the south of England. is so complicated that those who are not born this way can hardly acquire it. Pocket Fowler`s Modern English Usage, OUP, 2002, says of the usage rule shall and will: „It is unlikely that this rule ever had a consistent basis of authority in actual use, and many examples of printed [British] English ignore it.” We cannot ignore the discussion that we are also involved in a marketing operation when preparing a document. So if the use of „should” in our documents makes us portray as „stuffy and cumbersome,” then we like it or not, that`s something we need to consider. The two words you identify imply the same thing that something is done. There is little reason to continue to worry about semantics. It would be much wiser to rephrase the entire „term” so that the provision is explicitly conveyed: 6 Fed.
R. Evid. 1 Note by the Advisory Committee; Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Note from the Advisory Committee („The revised rules minimize the use of inherently ambiguous words. For example, the word „should” can mean „must,” „may,” or something else, depending on the context. The likelihood of confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the word „should” is generally no longer used in spoken or clearly written English.
Replace the redrafted rules „should” with „shall”, „may” or „should”, depending on the correct context and interpretation specified in each rule. The above meaning of shall is usually limited to direct questions with a first-person subject. In the case of a reported question (even if it is not related to the past tense), shall is likely to be replaced by should or another modal verb such as might: „She asks if she should open a window”; „He asked if they could dance.” According to Black`s Law Dictionary, the term „should” means „has a duty to.” This definition illustrates a mandatory aspect associated with the specified obligation. Therefore, it is mandatory for the person or legal person performing the obligation. In contracts, the word „debit” is traditionally used to refer to a duty or obligation related to the performance of the contract. Note that contracts are usually written in the third person. Therefore, the use of the word „should,” especially in the third person, means a kind of commandment, which makes the performance of an obligation or duty mandatory. Simply put, „debit,” especially in contracts or legal documents such as laws, usually refers to some form of coercive measures or the prohibition of a particular act. Commentators on the use of the word „debit” in contracts recommend that it is preferable to use the word „debit” when imposing an obligation or obligation on a particular person or organization that is a party to it. Outside of the Department of Defense, other parts of the U.S. government advise against using the word for three reasons: it lacks a single clear meaning, it provokes litigation, and it is almost absent from ordinary speech.
The legal reference Words and Phrases devotes 76 pages to summarizing hundreds of lawsuits that revolved around the meaning of the word. When it comes to a legal or technical requirement, words and phrases should be preferred instead, while recommendations should be reserved.  The best way to put the use of verbs on a consistent basis would be to create a clear framework in which different words are used to articulate different meanings. In this regard, must play a valuable role. I recommend using it to impose an obligation on the sentence as to how acme is supposed to buy the shares. The first criterion for the disciplined use of shall is whether you can replace it in your head with „has [or has] the duty to do so”. This simple test goes a long way in curbing excessive flow usage. When would and should function as past forms of will and duty, their use tends to correspond to that of the latter verbs (would be used in a manner analogous to will and should do so). .