Nor anyone acting on its behalf: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
''See also [[delegation]].''
{{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”.  
 
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 what one does not have.
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 what one does not have.
Line 7: Line 5:
Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story, but still this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a  representative would not thereby be acting under the contract at hand, nor really on the principal's behalf and thus wouldn't really ''be'' a representative, so this purported contractual stricture will fall upon stony ground.
Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story, but still this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a  representative would not thereby be acting under the contract at hand, nor really on the principal's behalf and thus wouldn't really ''be'' a representative, so this purported contractual stricture will fall upon stony ground.


So, be bold, young attorney: banish it from your lexical armoury.
So, be bold, young [[Legal eagle|eagle of the law]]: banish it from your armoury.
 
{{sa}}
{{plainenglish}}
*[[Delegation]]
*[[Nemo dat quod non habet]]

Revision as of 12:08, 23 March 2020

Towards more picturesque speech™
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: Click ᐅ to expand:
Plain English
Drafting
Metaphor
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.

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: one cannot give what one does not have.

Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story, but still this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a representative would not thereby be acting under the contract at hand, nor really on the principal's behalf and thus wouldn't really be a representative, so this purported contractual stricture will fall upon stony ground.

So, be bold, young eagle of the law: banish it from your armoury.

See also

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Nor_anyone_acting_on_its_behalf&oldid=42040"