Good egg: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|devil| | ||
[[File:Fifteenth Anniversary (Fabergé egg).jpg|450px|thumb|center|A jolly [[good egg]], Yesterday]] | [[File:Fifteenth Anniversary (Fabergé egg).jpg|450px|thumb|center|A jolly [[good egg]], Yesterday]] | ||
}}{{Maxim|Bonum ovum esse}}, or why it behoves you to be a good | }}{{Maxim|Bonum ovum esse}}, or why it behoves you to be a good [[egg]]. | ||
[[Mediocre lawyer|Those]] who cherish the feel of | [[Mediocre lawyer|Those]] who cherish the feel of [[flannel]] close to their skin will take comfort in expressions like “[[all or substantially all]]”; “[[in whole or in part]]”, “[[one or more]]”; “[[unless otherwise agreed]]” . These expressions betray the fear that a judge reading your prose will take a perversely literal view, and construe your words deliberately to upset you; as the [[Latin]]s say, “[[contra proferentem]]”. | ||
But the law of the land is not there to frustrate honest commercial intentions. A court will only do that if a contracting merchant’s intentions are base (as, to be sure, many will be if the opportunity arises: Adam Smith had some choice things to say about that). A fellow who exploits {{sex|his}} counterparty’s vulnerability or patent misapprehension can expect to find the awesome creative weight of the common law – [[estoppel]], [[constructive trust]]; [[money had and received]], ''[[assumpsit]]'' – incanted against him. Expect him to have a fully weaponised [[litigation department]]. | But the law of the land is not there to frustrate honest commercial intentions. A court will only do that if a contracting merchant’s intentions are base (as, to be sure, many will be if the opportunity arises: Adam Smith had some choice things to say about that). A fellow who exploits {{sex|his}} counterparty’s vulnerability or patent misapprehension can expect to find the awesome creative weight of the common law – [[estoppel]], [[constructive trust]]; [[money had and received]], ''[[assumpsit]]'' – incanted against him. Expect him to have a fully weaponised [[litigation department]]. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
But if it ''isn’t'' – if you act in [[good faith]], [[commercially reasonable manner|reasonably]], loving your [[neighbour]] as you love yourself; doing unto others only what you would have them do to you – you have little to fear from a literal construction. The common law is your friend. | But if it ''isn’t'' – if you act in [[good faith]], [[commercially reasonable manner|reasonably]], loving your [[neighbour]] as you love yourself; doing unto others only what you would have them do to you – you have little to fear from a literal construction. The common law is your friend. | ||
The | The [[Latin]] maxim – ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'' (“little old ladies make bad law”), even though I made it up, may be the final, deepest foundation of the law of [[equity]]. It has a converse expression, also home made and converted into [[Latin]] to make it sound plausible: ''[[noli mentula esse]]'': ''don’t be a penis''. Be clear about what you want, [[be a good egg]] and you have little to fear from her majesty’s judiciary. ''[[Bonum ovum esse]]'', you know? | ||
It is true that [[common law]] formulated in the service of [[wronged spinsters]] presents later courts who are bound by it with hefty intellectual challenges, but no self respecting judge shies away from those – they’re what {{sex|she}} took the oath for in the first place. | It is true that [[common law]] formulated in the service of [[wronged spinsters]] presents later courts who are bound by it with hefty intellectual challenges, but no self respecting judge shies away from those – they’re what {{sex|she}} took the oath for in the first place. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
.jpg)
|
Bonum ovum esse, or why it behoves you to be a good egg.
Those who cherish the feel of flannel close to their skin will take comfort in expressions like “all or substantially all”; “in whole or in part”, “one or more”; “unless otherwise agreed” . These expressions betray the fear that a judge reading your prose will take a perversely literal view, and construe your words deliberately to upset you; as the Latins say, “contra proferentem”.
But the law of the land is not there to frustrate honest commercial intentions. A court will only do that if a contracting merchant’s intentions are base (as, to be sure, many will be if the opportunity arises: Adam Smith had some choice things to say about that). A fellow who exploits his counterparty’s vulnerability or patent misapprehension can expect to find the awesome creative weight of the common law – estoppel, constructive trust; money had and received, assumpsit – incanted against him. Expect him to have a fully weaponised litigation department.
If that’s your caper, don’t expect words on paper, however exquisitely turned, to help you.
But if it isn’t – if you act in good faith, reasonably, loving your neighbour as you love yourself; doing unto others only what you would have them do to you – you have little to fear from a literal construction. The common law is your friend.
The Latin maxim – anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt (“little old ladies make bad law”), even though I made it up, may be the final, deepest foundation of the law of equity. It has a converse expression, also home made and converted into Latin to make it sound plausible: noli mentula esse: don’t be a penis. Be clear about what you want, be a good egg and you have little to fear from her majesty’s judiciary. Bonum ovum esse, you know?
It is true that common law formulated in the service of wronged spinsters presents later courts who are bound by it with hefty intellectual challenges, but no self respecting judge shies away from those – they’re what she took the oath for in the first place.