Cross references: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|plainenglish|}}Like excessive levels in automatic [[paragraph numbering]], a plague of cross-references in a contract is a telltale sign of legal over engineering. If you overuse clause cross-references — “[[subject to]] clause 12.5(g)(viii)(B)” sort of thing, especially if said clause is nowhere near the one at hand — you should be asking yourself stern questions about how well-organised and sleek your contract is.
{{a|drafting|}}Like excessive levels in automatic [[paragraph numbering]], a plague of cross-references in a contract is a telltale sign of legal over engineering. If you overuse clause cross-references — “[[subject to]] clause 12.5(g)(viii)(B)” sort of thing, especially if said clause is nowhere near the one at hand — you should be asking yourself stern questions about how well-organised and elegant your contractual prose really is.
{{Sa}}
{{Sa}}
*[[Paragraph numbering]]
*[[Paragraph numbering]]
*[[Subject to]]
*[[Subject to]]

Latest revision as of 09:20, 8 September 2022

The JC’s guide to writing nice.™


Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Like excessive levels in automatic paragraph numbering, a plague of cross-references in a contract is a telltale sign of legal over engineering. If you overuse clause cross-references — “subject to clause 12.5(g)(viii)(B)” sort of thing, especially if said clause is nowhere near the one at hand — you should be asking yourself stern questions about how well-organised and elegant your contractual prose really is.

See also