Successors and assigns: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "Quoth [http://www.adamsdrafting.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Advocate-Successors-Assigns-June-July-2013.pdf Ken Adams] “But a simpler explanation is that it’s a use..."
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Quoth [http://www.adamsdrafting.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Advocate-Successors-Assigns-June-July-2013.pdf Ken Adams]  
{{a|plainenglish|}}[http://www.adamsdrafting.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Advocate-Successors-Assigns-June-July-2013.pdf Quoth] the redoubtable [[Ken Adams]]:


“But a simpler explanation is that it’s a useless provision that survives because drafters are unsure what function it serves and so are loath to get rid of it. And it’s sufficiently obscure that one can project onto it all sorts of unlikely meanings.”
“But a simpler explanation is that it’s a useless provision that survives because drafters are unsure what function it serves and so are loath to get rid of it. And it’s sufficiently obscure that one can project onto it all sorts of unlikely meanings.”
{{plainenglish}}

Revision as of 10:47, 15 June 2021

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.

Quoth the redoubtable Ken Adams:

“But a simpler explanation is that it’s a useless provision that survives because drafters are unsure what function it serves and so are loath to get rid of it. And it’s sufficiently obscure that one can project onto it all sorts of unlikely meanings.”