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
 
(21 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{f|Or any part thereof}} and its many variants is an elegantly redundant square of {{tag|flannel}}, perfect for wiping clean the face of just the kind of cherub who would never get his little boat-race grubby in the first place. You know the kind. Butter wouldn’t melt in his jumped-up little gob.
{{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.


When it comes to face-washing, or chopping down trees in Canada, you may need {{tag|flannel}}, but to state it baldly and without qualification omits the undeniable fact you may not need ''the whole thing''. As pathologically as it abhors elegance, legal language hates a vacuum, and if you’re the sort of [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] who believes that a sum does not include each of its parts taken individually, this [[brushed-cotton]] expression 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>.  


Timber!
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.


{{plainenglish}}
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 knee-slide|swept-back wing fighter-jet impersonation]]  to the corner flag or a baseballer’s serial high-five as she ambles past the dug-out.
 
{{sa}}
*[[Negotiation]]
*[[Rider]]
 
{{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.