Nor anyone acting on its behalf: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pe}}That fabulous {{t|Latin}} construction [[nemo dat quod non habet]] ought, but does not, nix that tedious drafting construction: “neither X, ''[[nor anyone acting on its behalf]]'', may do Y”. | {{pe}}That fabulous {{t|Latin}} construction [[nemo dat quod non habet]] ought, but does not, nix that tedious drafting construction: “neither X, ''[[nor anyone acting on its behalf]]'', may do Y”. | ||
For if, by the lights of the law, a [[principal]] has no right to do a thing, it follows as a matter of ineffable Latin logic that neither may her ox, ass, servant, agent, attorney, nominee, delegate or other mortal representative do that thing on her behalf: one cannot give | For if, by the lights of the law, a [[principal]] has no right to do a thing, it follows as a matter of ineffable Latin logic that neither may her ox, ass, [[servant]], [[agent]], [[attorney]], [[nominee]], [[delegate]] or other mortal representative do that thing [[on behalf of|on her behalf]]: ''[[nemo dat quod non habet]]'': one cannot give someone else a power one does not have oneself. | ||
Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story, | Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story — but even here, this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a representative would not thereby be acting under her own power, not courtesy of yours, and would not be acting [[on behalf of|on your behalf]] at all. Seeing as she wouldn’t ''be'' your representative in the first place, this purported stricture will fall upon stony contractual ground. | ||
So, be bold, young [[Legal eagle|eagle of the law]]: | So, be bold, young [[Legal eagle|eagle of the law]]: wherever you see this construction, strike it from the record. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Delegation]] | *[[Delegation]] | ||
*[[Nemo dat quod non habet]] | *[[Nemo dat quod non habet]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:15, 23 March 2020
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
That fabulous Latin construction nemo dat quod non habet ought, but does not, nix that tedious drafting construction: “neither X, nor anyone acting on its behalf, may do Y”.
For if, by the lights of the law, a principal has no right to do a thing, it follows as a matter of ineffable Latin logic that neither may her ox, ass, servant, agent, attorney, nominee, delegate or other mortal representative do that thing on her behalf: nemo dat quod non habet: one cannot give someone else a power one does not have oneself.
Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story — but even here, this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a representative would not thereby be acting under her own power, not courtesy of yours, and would not be acting on your behalf at all. Seeing as she wouldn’t be your representative in the first place, this purported stricture will fall upon stony contractual ground.
So, be bold, young eagle of the law: wherever you see this construction, strike it from the record.