Interpretation and construction: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{a|boilerplate|}}Interpretation and construction breaks down into: *interpretation — how one should generally construe generic phrases: should singulars include plu..."
 
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:53, 27 October 2020

Boilerplate Anatomy™
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.

Interpretation and construction breaks down into:

  • interpretation — how one should generally construe generic phrases: should singulars include plurals; masculine include the feminine and non-binary shades between; should references to principals include their agent or even affiliates, should references to contracts, statutes and regulations be understood as originally executed/enacted or as subsequently amended from time to time — don’t giggle at the back, Blenkinsop Minor: this might seem obvious to the point of banality to you, but it keeps ERISA attorneys awake at night, and populates and animates their most gruesome nightmares.[1]
  • Construction — whether to pay any attention to headings, and which section prevails should one part of the agreement conflict with another — in a single unitary agreement, a bit of a bish, needless to say, but in a hierarchically-structured master agreement, a part of the design)
  • Definitions. Now there is one thing we all know. Commercial lawyers luuuuuurve definitions.

See also

References

  1. Doubt as to whether a statute should be construed as amended is at the heart of ERISA netting problem.