I always enjoy reading Adamsdrafting and the entry today about "representations and warranties" in contracts was no exception. We have all seen and/or written that standard section in contracts that lists "representations and warranties."� Ken discusses what, if anything, that heading means in the context of subsequent actions for breach. For example, if a particular promise or statement is characterized only as a "warranty,"� can its breach support a claim for misrepresentation or fraud? Ken concludes:

So here's the upshot: There's no modern support for the notion that whether you use representation or warranty (or represents or warrants) in a contract would affect the remedies available to a party. Instead, there's authority for the converse. Whatever purpose you might be seeking to accomplish through such a distinction, you'd be much better off using other, more explicit language to accomplish it.

This analysis has application beyond contracts. In any kind of legal writing (or non-legal for that matter), the best course is to decide what your purpose is and use explicit language to accomplish that purpose.