Interpretation and construction: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|boilerplate|}}Interpretation and construction breaks down into: *interpretation — how one should generally construe generic phrases: should singulars include plu..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|construction|}}[[Interpretation and construction]] breaks down into: | ||
====Interpretation==== | |||
How one should generally construe generic phrases: should singulars include plurals; masculine include the feminine and non-binary shades between; should references to [[principal]]s include their [[agent]] or even [[affiliate]]s, should references to [[contract]]s, [[statute]]s and [[regulation]]s be understood as originally executed/enacted or as subsequently amended [[from time to time]] — don’t giggle at the back, Blenkinsop Minor: this might seem obvious to the point of banality to ''you'', but it keeps [[ERISA]] attorneys awake at night, and populates and animates their most gruesome nightmares.<ref>Doubt as to whether a statute should be construed as amended is at the heart of [[ERISA netting]] problem.</ref> | |||
====Construction==== | |||
when approaching the semiotic task of ''construing'' these elegantly turned phrases, whether one should pay any attention to [[headings]], and which prevails should one part of the agreement conflict with another — in a single unitary agreement, a bit of a bish, needless to say, but in a hierarchically-structured [[master agreement]], part of the design) | |||
====Definitions==== | |||
Now there is one thing we all know. Commercial lawyers ''luuuuuurve'' [[definitions]]. | |||
====Natural language==== | |||
For a deeper metaphysical discussion of the nature of ''[[construal]]'' in a natural language and how it differs from [[symbol processing]] carried out by a [[Turing machine]], see [[read/write]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Read/write]] | |||
*[[Symbol processing]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:28, 5 August 2024
|
Interpretation and construction boilerplate anatomy™
|
Interpretation and construction breaks down into:
Interpretation
How one should generally construe generic phrases: should singulars include plurals; masculine include the feminine and non-binary shades between; should references to principals include their agent or even affiliates, should references to contracts, statutes and regulations be understood as originally executed/enacted or as subsequently amended from time to time — don’t giggle at the back, Blenkinsop Minor: this might seem obvious to the point of banality to you, but it keeps ERISA attorneys awake at night, and populates and animates their most gruesome nightmares.[1]
Construction
when approaching the semiotic task of construing these elegantly turned phrases, whether one should pay any attention to headings, and which prevails should one part of the agreement conflict with another — in a single unitary agreement, a bit of a bish, needless to say, but in a hierarchically-structured master agreement, part of the design)
Definitions
Now there is one thing we all know. Commercial lawyers luuuuuurve definitions.
Natural language
For a deeper metaphysical discussion of the nature of construal in a natural language and how it differs from symbol processing carried out by a Turing machine, see read/write.
See also
References
- ↑ Doubt as to whether a statute should be construed as amended is at the heart of ERISA netting problem.