To the fullest extent permissible by law: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

To the fullest extent permissible by law (view source)

Revision as of 21:46, 15 November 2022

5 bytes added , 15 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,351

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{quote|
-''The Issuer [[to the maximum extent permissible by law]], accepts no liability for the contents of this prospectus...''}}
+''The Issuer [[to the fullest extent permissible by law]], accepts no liability for the contents of this prospectus...''}}
 {{sex|She}} might pause briefly, on that first fumbling encounter, and wonder what legal mischief this [[incantation]] is [[calculated]] to ward off. Does the law assume that any contractual provision is [[deemed]], unless you say to the contrary, to be half-hearted in its intent — a choked nine-iron back onto the fairway from behind a tree, and not a full-throated drive at the green?
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 “Okay, okay, I ''get'' it. You aren’t responsible. ''Jesus''. Calm ''down'' already.”
-Now, should it transpire that, for all the Issuer’s bluntest warnings the fullest extent of the law did not allow it off a hook to which the law’s gentler passages might have turned a blind eye — and we quite like the idea there are lazy stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wet ’n’ wild as its far reaches —  then in that case, for investors, happy days; they’re in the money, however terse and to the point the Issuer has been in its disclaimer.  But what would the Issuer have gained by tempering its disclaimer with this “fullest extent” vacillation in any case?
+Now, should it transpire that the fullest extent of the law does ''not'' allow the Issuer off a hook to which the law’s gentler passages might have turned a blind eye — we quite like the idea there are lazy stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wild as its farthest reaches, by the way —  then investors will get the benefit of that full extent, however fulsome or terse the Issuer’s disclaimer.
+So what does the Issuer gain by tempering its disclaimer with this “fullest extent” vacillation?
+As do so many of the hypotheticals posed in these pages, we suppose this one too will turn out to be a rhetorical question.
+{{sa}}
+*[[I never said you couldn’t]]
-And ''not'' saying it hardly makes the Issuer’s position worse, does it?
-{{egg}}
 {{ref}}