83,307
edits
I never said you couldn’t: Difference between revisions
m
Amwelladmin moved page I never said it was to I never said you couldn’t over redirect
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page I never said it was to I never said you couldn’t over redirect) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|[[File:Nasty.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Dishwashing liquid, anyone?]]}} | {{a|plainenglish|[[File:Nasty.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Dishwashing liquid, anyone?]]}}{{I never said it was}} | ||
{{I never said it was}} | |||
Your starting point, therefore, should be that you should ''not'' say what you are not going to do. Because that perversely, might be taken as implying you ''have'' agreed to do something else you forgot to rule out. | Your starting point, therefore, should be that you should ''not'' say what you are not going to do. Because that perversely, might be taken as implying you ''have'' agreed to do something else you forgot to rule out. To make this sound more serious, we have made up a Latin maxim for it:<ref>Our [[Secret Latin advisor]] has not checked this yet so all responsibility is mine.</ref> | ||
The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general positive commitment: “The chargor will take all practicable steps to assist the chargee in registering the charge” | ''[[Non dixi quod factum ita]]'' | ||
The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general positive commitment: | |||
:“The chargor will take all practicable steps to assist the chargee in registering the charge” | |||
by using specific restrictions to rein it in: | |||
:“[[for the avoidance of doubt]] in doing so the chargor [[shall]] not be [[obligated]] to breach, transgress or contravene, [[as the case may be]], any statue, law or regulation.” | |||
Of course, the [[prose stylist|prose stylists]] amongst you — all right, my little contrarians, admit it: ''there are none'' — might prefer to draft ''sans doubte'' in the first place. | Of course, the [[prose stylist|prose stylists]] amongst you — all right, my little contrarians, admit it: ''there are none'' — might prefer to draft ''sans doubte'' in the first place. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 14: | ||
Which brings us to ''Nasty''. {{video nasty}} | Which brings us to ''Nasty''. {{video nasty}} | ||
This is the | This is the [[legal eagle]]’s take on that old philosophical adage: [[the onus of proof is on the person making an existential claim]]. Here is a thought experiment to fortify your resolve to strike [[incluso]]s from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without willing the ground open up and swallow you. | ||
We can imagine the fun {{jbm}} would have in submissons: | |||
{{court scene|II|iv|stares winsomely at a an odd knot in the panel at the rear of the court, mutely resenting the human race’s inability to invent a good biro|rises suddenly, causing a rent in his trousers that sounds like a passing Ferrari. The Lord Justice blanches. Sir Jerrold clears his throat}} | {{court scene|II|iv|stares winsomely at a an odd knot in the panel at the rear of the court, mutely resenting the human race’s inability to invent a good biro|rises suddenly, causing a rent in his trousers that sounds like a passing Ferrari. The Lord Justice blanches. Sir Jerrold clears his throat}} | ||
| Line 36: | Line 40: | ||
==={{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}=== | ==={{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}=== | ||
All this ribaldry is all well and good but we should mention curious case of ''[[Greenclose]]'', which is held that section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{isdama}}, which provides several methods by which a party “[[may]]” communicate under that {{isdama}} should be interpreted to exclude any other means of communication — in other words as a “must”. More on that in the [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|case note]] and in our article on section {{isdaprov|12 }} of the {{isdama}} | All this ribaldry is all well and good but we should mention curious case of ''[[Greenclose]]'', which is held that section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{isdama}}, which provides several methods by which a party “[[may]]” communicate under that {{isdama}} should be interpreted to exclude any other means of communication — in other words as a “must”. More on that in the [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|case note]] and in our article on section {{isdaprov|12 }} of the {{isdama}} | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Culpa in contrahendo]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||