Or any part thereof: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|plainenglish|[[File:Or any part thereof.png|thumb|510px|right|Stick ''that'' in your pipe and smoke it, [[Counselor]]]]}}As pathologically as they abhor elegance, [[legal eagle]]s deplore a [[vacuum]], and if you’re the sort who believes that a sum does not include each of its parts taken individually, the work-a-day expression “{{f|Or any part thereof}}” is perfect for the pregnant pause you might otherwise have in your draft.
{{a|banned|{{image|Or any part thereof|png|Stick ''that'' in your pipe and smoke it, [[Counselor]]}}}}As pathologically as they abhor elegance, [[legal eagle]]s deplore a [[vacuum]], and if you’re the sort who believes that a sum does not include each of its parts taken individually, the work-a-day expression “{{f|Or any part thereof}}” is perfect for the pregnant pause you might otherwise have in your draft.


It is also a satisfying way of “improving” the drafting of a those who themselves aggravate the [[negotiation]] process with leaden augmentations. We all know one<ref>Dammit we all know THOUSANDS.</ref>.  
It is also a satisfying way of “improving” the drafting of a those who themselves aggravate the [[negotiation]] process with leaden augmentations. We all know one<ref>Dammit we all know THOUSANDS.</ref>.  

Latest revision as of 09:09, 17 December 2022

The JC’s Unmentionables™

Expressions our subeditor would strike from your copy — if we had a subeditor, and you submitted copy.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Counselor
🚫🚫🚫
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

As pathologically as they abhor elegance, legal eagles deplore a vacuum, and if you’re the sort who believes that a sum does not include each of its parts taken individually, the work-a-day expression “Or any part thereof” is perfect for the pregnant pause you might otherwise have in your draft.

It is also a satisfying way of “improving” the drafting of a those who themselves aggravate the negotiation process with leaden augmentations. We all know one[1].

However pedantic your adversary may be, in a long document he will be bound to have missed a clarifying construction somewhere. It will be a cinch to find it. And then, “, or any part thereof” — scrawled on a rider, ideally, for dramatic effect — is your slam dunk; your dead fish shot in a barrel. You’ve got him.

With this harmless, but spiteful, unguent, appended in the privacy of your own chambers with a lawyer’s flourish you can perform same pimp-roll that prompts a goal-scoring footballer’s swept-back wing fighter-jet impersonation to the corner flag or a baseballer’s serial high-five as she ambles past the dug-out.

See also

References

  1. Dammit we all know THOUSANDS.