Legal mark-up: Difference between revisions

Legal mark-up (view source)

Revision as of 10:28, 3 April 2019

333 bytes added , 3 April 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 If you ask a lawyer for [[comments]], she will give you some, whether your draft needed them or not. This is a founding crux of the [[anal paradox]]. For a mark-up proves you have read an agreement, considered its content, and justified your fee. It's in her nature. It is what she does.
-No text is immune from adjustment, and if your only objective is to show you've read it, slipping in a harmless [[for the avoidance of doubt]], or a [[without limitation]] or two, is the least professionally invasive way of achieving that.
+No text is immune from adjustment, and if your only objective is to show you've read it, slipping in a harmless “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, a “[[without limitation]]”, an “[[as the case may be]]” or — though on a fraught negotiation this is pushing it, be warned — an “[[(if any)]]” is a professionally satisfying but yet non-invasive way of achieving that.
-No such ornamentation is [[calculated]] to improve the elegance of the text, of course. To do that you will need to disentangle some convoluted grammar. This will be seen as enemy action, especially if your edits are not directed at ''some'' legal content, however spurious.
+No such ornamentation is [[calculated]] to improve the elegance of the text, of course. To do that you will need to disentangle some convoluted grammar — perhaps by deleting an [[as the case may be]]<ref> be careful not to ''add'' the same thing n one place and ''delete'' it in another: this will be seen as hostile action.</ref>. This will be seen as enemy action, especially if your edits are not directed at ''some'' legal content, however spurious.
 {{plainenglish}}
 {{dramatis personae}}
+{{ref}}