83,255
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) |
||
| (2 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> | ||
''[[Non dixi quod factum ita]]'' | |||
The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general positive commitment: | The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general positive commitment: | ||
| Line 39: | 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}} | ||