Singulars and plurals: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(31 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pe}}To what end the forensic remark “All references to the singular [[shall]] include the [[plural]], and vice versa”?
{{a|construction|
{{image|Sausage|jpg|A (singular) sausage, yesterday}}}}{{dialogue|
''A roadside cafe, 1983. {{caps|Bad News}} guitarist {{caps|Den}} approaches the counter with his tray.''<br>
{{dia|Cashier|Two pounds and five pence, please, love.}}
{{dia|Den|Two quid?}}
{{dia|Cashier|That’s right, love. Two pounds and five pence.}}
{{dia|Den|Two quid for one bloody sausage?}}
{{dia|Cashier|It was clearly marked, love. “Sausage, beans and chips: two pounds and five pence.”}}
{{dia|Den|It says “sausa''ges''” up there, not just one sausage! Look, it says “sausa''ges''”! Where’s my other sausage, then?}}
:—''Comic Strip Presents: The Bad News Tour (1983)''
}}
{{drop|T|o what end}} the forensic remark “All references to the singular [[shall]] include the [[plural]], and vice versa”? What legal benefit[[(s)]] accrue[[(s)]] by interposing parentheses on either side of a plural-denoting “s”?


To your correspondent, none at all. This is throat-clearing, pointless text which, once in, benefits from the loving embrace of the [[anal paradox]], but fulfils no purpose whatsoever. No lawyer will ever object to it, but — and because — it plays no role in the legal meaning of the contract whatsoever. Can you imagine your learned counsel, [[Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, Q.C.]] standing up in court and learnedly submitted, to Lord Justice [[Cocklecarrot MR]]:
{{quote|Unless the context requires a contrary construction, the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular; and the masculine, feminine or neuter shall include the masculine, feminine and neuter.}}


:'''Sir Jerrold''': M’Lud, the defendant acknowledges that it was obliged to comply with the plaintiff’s procedures — it says exactly that in clause 93.5(c)(iii)(G) of the [[indenture]], it cannot be denied — but the vital point is this: the plaintiff only had ''one'' procedure. Its operations manager, Mr Strumpet, conceded as much in cross examination this morning. So my respectful submission, M'Lud, is that nowhere in this contract — nowhere — does it require the defendant to comply with a ''single'' procedure. And for this authority I respectfully submit —” ''here Sir Jerrold looks about wildly at his junior, Master Contrario, who looks back at him blankly.'' “— ah, as authority for this well established principle of English, ah, law —”  ''here Sir Jerrold discreetly but violently jams the heel of his brogue into his junior’s shin.<br>
To your correspondent, none. To {{icds}} — a troupe not given to cavalier neglect of necessary text — [[What would ISDA do?|also, none]]. It is a whoreson zed; an unnecessary letter. This is throat-clearing text which, once in, benefits from the loving embrace of the [[anal paradox]], but serves no purpose to [[Legal Eagle|those]] who have not embarked upon the noble pursuit of prolixity.
:'''Master Contrario''' ''(in abject agony)'': AAAARGH! ''(collapses in a dead-faint on the courtroom floor.)''
 
:'''Sir Jerrold''': Well, M’Lud I am obliged this is most unusual, but it appears my learned friend is in some difficulty and I would pray an adjournment while —  
No lawyer will ever object to it, but — and ''because'' — it plays no role in unravelling the practical meaning of the legal {{t|contract}}, bar the obvious ones, where a singular does ''not'' include the plural — where a fellow is acquiring a solitary sausage from a nasty café, for very good example — and it would be a nonsense.
:'''Cocklecarrot MR''': While the ground swallows you up, Sir Jerrold?
 
Can you imagine standing up in court and learnedly submitting that a [[plural]] did not include the [[singular]]? The [[JC]] addressed this thought experiment by thumbing the pages of the {{jclr}} until he found the following testy exchange between {{jerrold}} and {{cocklecarrot}}, knee-deep, as they usually were, in bitter [[litigation]].
 
{{dialogue|
{{dia|{{jerrold}}|M’Lud, the defendant acknowledges that it was obliged to comply with the plaintiff’s procedures — it says exactly that in clause 93.5(c)(iii)(G) of the [[indenture]], it cannot be denied — but the vital point is this: the plaintiff only had ''one'' procedure. Its operations manager, Mr Strumpet, conceded as much in cross-examination this morning. So my respectful submission, M’Lud, is that nowhere in this contract — ''nowhere'' — does it require the defendant to comply with a ''single'' procedure. And for this authority I respectfully submit —” ''here Sir Jerrold looks about wildly at his junior, Master Contrario, who looks back at him blankly.'' “— ah, as authority for this well-established principle of English, ah, law —”  ''here Sir Jerrold discreetly but violently jams his heel into his junior’s shin.}}
{{dia|Master Contrario|AAAARGH! ''(collapses in agony in a dead-faint on the courtroom floor.)''}}
{{dia|{{jbm}}|''(ostensibly horrified by the scene before him)'': Well, M’Lud this is most unfortunate! My learned helper here is in some awful difficulty and I would pray brief adjournment while — }}
{{dia|{{cmr}}|While the ground swallows you up, Sir Jerrold?}}
{{dia|{{jbm}}|If it pleases M’Lud.}}
''The Court adjourns. {{Jbm}} wipes his brow with a kerchief, and paramedics take Master Contrario away.''}}
 
{{sa}}
{{gb|[[What would ISDA do?]]<li>[[Anal paradox]]}}

Latest revision as of 09:37, 1 October 2024

Interpretation and construction boilerplate anatomy™


A (singular) sausage, yesterday
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.

A roadside cafe, 1983. Bad News guitarist Den approaches the counter with his tray.

Cashier: Two pounds and five pence, please, love.

Den: Two quid?

Cashier: That’s right, love. Two pounds and five pence.

Den: Two quid for one bloody sausage?

Cashier: It was clearly marked, love. “Sausage, beans and chips: two pounds and five pence.”

Den: It says “sausages” up there, not just one sausage! Look, it says “sausages”! Where’s my other sausage, then?

Comic Strip Presents: The Bad News Tour (1983)

To what end the forensic remark “All references to the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa”? What legal benefit(s) accrue(s) by interposing parentheses on either side of a plural-denoting “s”?

Unless the context requires a contrary construction, the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular; and the masculine, feminine or neuter shall include the masculine, feminine and neuter.

To your correspondent, none. To ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ — a troupe not given to cavalier neglect of necessary text — also, none. It is a whoreson zed; an unnecessary letter. This is throat-clearing text which, once in, benefits from the loving embrace of the anal paradox, but serves no purpose to those who have not embarked upon the noble pursuit of prolixity.

No lawyer will ever object to it, but — and because — it plays no role in unravelling the practical meaning of the legal contract, bar the obvious ones, where a singular does not include the plural — where a fellow is acquiring a solitary sausage from a nasty café, for very good example — and it would be a nonsense.

Can you imagine standing up in court and learnedly submitting that a plural did not include the singular? The JC addressed this thought experiment by thumbing the pages of the Jolly Contrarian’s Law Reports until he found the following testy exchange between Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. and Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R., knee-deep, as they usually were, in bitter litigation.

Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C.: M’Lud, the defendant acknowledges that it was obliged to comply with the plaintiff’s procedures — it says exactly that in clause 93.5(c)(iii)(G) of the indenture, it cannot be denied — but the vital point is this: the plaintiff only had one procedure. Its operations manager, Mr Strumpet, conceded as much in cross-examination this morning. So my respectful submission, M’Lud, is that nowhere in this contract — nowhere — does it require the defendant to comply with a single procedure. And for this authority I respectfully submit —” here Sir Jerrold looks about wildly at his junior, Master Contrario, who looks back at him blankly. “— ah, as authority for this well-established principle of English, ah, law —” here Sir Jerrold discreetly but violently jams his heel into his junior’s shin.

Master Contrario: AAAARGH! (collapses in agony in a dead-faint on the courtroom floor.)

Sir Jerrold: (ostensibly horrified by the scene before him): Well, M’Lud this is most unfortunate! My learned helper here is in some awful difficulty and I would pray brief adjournment while —

Cocklecarrot L.J.: While the ground swallows you up, Sir Jerrold?

Sir Jerrold: If it pleases M’Lud.

The Court adjourns. Sir Jerrold wipes his brow with a kerchief, and paramedics take Master Contrario away.

See also