Words are weirdly expensive. In the world of law, property, and academic funding, the tiny nuances between how you grant present confer connections and how you merely "give" something can cost millions. People honestly trip over these terms all the time. They think they’re synonyms. They aren't.
If you’ve ever looked at a deed or a massive research contract, you’ve seen the "grant" language. It feels stuffy. It feels like someone wearing a powdered wig wrote it. But there is a very specific, mechanical reason why these words exist in that specific order.
The Reality of Granting vs. Conferring
Let's get into the weeds. When a university or a government body decides to grant present confer connections to an individual or an organization, they are performing a "performative utterance." That's a fancy way of saying the words themselves do the action.
A "grant" usually implies a transfer of an interest in property. If I grant you an easement, I am literally carving a piece of my rights away and handing them to you. "Confer," on the other hand, is often used for titles, degrees, or powers. You confer a PhD; you don't grant it in the same physical sense as land.
The "present" part is the kicker. In legal drafting, saying "I hereby grant" creates a "present" transfer. If you leave that out, or if you use future-tense language like "I will grant," you haven't actually given anything yet. You’ve just made a promise to do it later. That distinction is where people get sued.
Why "Connections" Matter in Funding
Why do we talk about connections in this context? Because no grant exists in a vacuum. When the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issues a grant, they are creating a web of connections between the federal government, the host institution (like a university), and the principal investigator.
It’s a triangle.
💡 You might also like: New Zealand currency to AUD: Why the exchange rate is shifting in 2026
The money doesn't just go to the scientist. It goes to the school. The school then confers the authority to the scientist to spend it. If those grant present confer connections aren't explicitly mapped out in the contract, the intellectual property (IP) rights become a total nightmare.
Take the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Before this, if the government granted you money, the government owned your invention. Period. Afterward, the "connection" changed. The act allowed universities to keep the title to inventions made with federal funding. This one change in how we view the "conferring" of rights is why we have so many biotech startups spinning out of places like MIT and Stanford today.
The Problem With Informal Agreements
Sometimes people try to be casual. They write an email saying, "Yeah, you can use the equipment."
That is not a grant.
In most jurisdictions, real property or significant IP requires a formal instrument. If you don't use the specific language of "granting," you might only be creating a "license." A license is revocable. A grant is usually permanent or has a fixed term that can’t just be snatched back because someone got moody.
How the Courts Look at These Terms
Judges are obsessed with intent. But they are even more obsessed with the "four corners" of a document. If the paper says "confer," they look for a status change. If it says "grant," they look for a deed or a title transfer.
📖 Related: How Much Do Chick fil A Operators Make: What Most People Get Wrong
There was a famous case involving the "present" transfer of rights where a company thought they had bought a patent. However, the contract said the seller "agrees to grant" the rights in the future. Because it wasn't a "present grant," a third party was able to swoop in and buy the patent first. The first company lost everything because of two words.
It’s brutal.
Real-World Mechanics of Conferring Power
Think about corporate bylaws. A board of directors will grant present confer connections to a new CEO. They aren't giving the CEO the building. They are conferring the power to sign checks.
This is often done through a "Power of Attorney" or a specific board resolution. The connection here is fiduciary. The CEO now has a legal connection to the shareholders' pockets. If the language is vague, the CEO can argue they had "apparent authority" to do things the board never intended.
- Granting: Transferring the "thing" (land, money, IP).
- Conferring: Giving the "right" or "status" (authority, degree, title).
- Present: Doing it right now, not tomorrow.
- Connections: The legal relationship created between the parties.
Misconceptions That Kill Startups
A lot of founders think that because they started the company, they automatically "own" the code. Wrong.
Unless there is a "written grant" of the copyright from the founder to the company, the founder actually keeps the rights personally. This creates a "connection" issue when a VC wants to invest. The VC looks at the books and sees that the company doesn't actually own its own product.
👉 See also: ROST Stock Price History: What Most People Get Wrong
You have to "presently grant and assign" all rights to the entity. If you just say "I'll give the company the code," you're asking for a massive tax and legal headache down the road.
Honestly, it’s better to pay a lawyer $500 now to write three sentences than to pay $50,000 later to fix a "chain of title" error.
Actionable Steps for Managing These Terms
If you are dealing with contracts, grants, or any high-stakes transfer of rights, you need a checklist that isn't just a generic template.
- Check the Tense: Look for "hereby grants" or "hereby confers." If you see "will grant" or "shall confer," be careful. That’s a promise, not an action. You might need a second document later to actually finish the deal.
- Define the Connection: Who is the "Grantor" and who is the "Grantee"? Is there a third party (like a university or a parent company) that needs to be part of the connection?
- Specify the "Present" Nature: Ensure the document states that the transfer is happening at the moment of signing. This prevents "intervening interests" from taking over your rights.
- Distinguish Grant from License: If you want to keep ownership but let someone use your stuff, use "license." If you are washing your hands of it and handing it over, use "grant."
- Verify Authority: Make sure the person "conferring" the right actually has the power to do so. In government grants, this means checking the "Delegation of Authority" within the agency.
Understanding the grant present confer connections in your professional life isn't just about being a pedant. It’s about protecting your work. Whether you are a researcher applying for a fellowship or a small business owner signing a lease, the specific verbs used in those documents are the only things standing between you and a total loss of rights.
Always look for the "present" intent. If the language feels like it's kicking the can down the road, it probably is. Make sure the "connections" are tight, the "grant" is clear, and the "conferred" power is limited to exactly what is necessary. This is how you avoid the "limbo" state where everyone thinks they own something, but nobody actually does.