Subject to: 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
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|pe|}}A kind of evil twin to “[[notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained]]”, “'''subject to'''...” is special kind of throat-clearing paddery: any preamble prefaced this way or its flannelesque variants — “subject ''always'' to”; “subject to any provisions herein to the contrary”; “subject to agreement to the contrary”; that kind of thing — speaks to nervousness about one’s own drafting, or worse, nervousness about the sacred right of merchants to make and adjust their commercial arrangements as they see fit — the latter needlessly egged on by the perverse ruling in {{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} as to the legal effect of [[no oral modification]] clauses.
{{a|pe|}}A kind of evil twin to “[[notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained]]”, “'''subject to'''...” is special kind of throat-clearing paddery: any preamble prefaced this way or its flannelesque variants — “subject ''always'' to”; “subject to any provisions herein to the contrary”; “subject to agreement to the contrary”; that kind of thing — speaks to nervousness about one’s own drafting, or worse, nervousness about the sacred right of merchants to make and adjust their commercial arrangements as they see fit — the latter needlessly egged on by the perverse ruling in {{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} as to the legal effect of [[no oral modification]] clauses.


Wherefore “subject ''always'' to”? Well, to easily disturbed minds, it shuts a door that less fulsomely-expressed contingencies might have left open. Could “subject to ~” be read as to imply things are only “subject ''sometimes'' to ~” — yes, yes: the plain-speakers among you will surely cavill at such limp-mindedness, and the [[JC]] would be at your shoulder if you did so, but if you can think of a better rationale for that “always” than such pedantry, your imagination is more gruesome than ours.
Wherefore “subject ''always'' to”? Well, to easily disturbed minds, it shuts a door that less fulsomely-expressed contingencies might have left open. Could “subject to ~” be read as to imply things are only “subject ''sometimes'' to ~”, and other times not? Yes, yes: the plain-speakers among you will cavill at such limp-mindedness, and the [[JC]] would be at your shoulder if you did, but if you can confect a better rationale for imposing that “always”, your imagination is more gruesome even than his.
 
“Subject to” also often heralds a forthcoming clause [[cross reference]]. As we argue [[cross references|elsewhere]], cross references in legal contracts are a kind of Kell of disorganised or or fussy drafting.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Cross reference]]
*[[No oral modification]] and {{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}
*[[No oral modification]] and {{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}
*[[Notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained]]
*[[Notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained]]

Latest revision as of 09:15, 19 August 2022

Towards more picturesque speech
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: 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 kind of evil twin to “notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained”, “subject to...” is special kind of throat-clearing paddery: any preamble prefaced this way or its flannelesque variants — “subject always to”; “subject to any provisions herein to the contrary”; “subject to agreement to the contrary”; that kind of thing — speaks to nervousness about one’s own drafting, or worse, nervousness about the sacred right of merchants to make and adjust their commercial arrangements as they see fit — the latter needlessly egged on by the perverse ruling in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited as to the legal effect of no oral modification clauses.

Wherefore “subject always to”? Well, to easily disturbed minds, it shuts a door that less fulsomely-expressed contingencies might have left open. Could “subject to ~” be read as to imply things are only “subject sometimes to ~”, and other times not? Yes, yes: the plain-speakers among you will cavill at such limp-mindedness, and the JC would be at your shoulder if you did, but if you can confect a better rationale for imposing that “always”, your imagination is more gruesome even than his.

“Subject to” also often heralds a forthcoming clause cross reference. As we argue elsewhere, cross references in legal contracts are a kind of Kell of disorganised or or fussy drafting.

See also