Singulars and plurals

Interpretation and construction boilerplate anatomy™ →Go uptown A (singular) sausage, yesterday Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Construction Boilerplate 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

• What would ISDA do?
• Anal paradox