Subject to: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
Line 2: Line 2:


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.
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]]