Carve-out: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Carve-outs may go without saying — they usually do — and many can be regarded as a species of redundancy: of a piece with a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”. Yet how playful it can be, when the [[carve-out]] is ''from'' a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”! Some are woven from a stouter fibre, whose implied articulation no drafting, however doubtless, could presume. | Carve-outs may go without saying — they usually do — and many can be regarded as a species of redundancy: of a piece with a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”. Yet how playful it can be, when the [[carve-out]] is ''from'' a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”! Some are woven from a stouter fibre, whose implied articulation no drafting, however doubtless, could presume. | ||
Where the [[carve-out]] carves out from an exclusion of liabilty which is ''itself'' a kind of carve-out, we create some kind of ''[[carve-in]]''; an elaborate sculpting of the rock from which we extract our legal relations. The [[carve-out]] thus toys with our traditional notions of [[Space-time continuum|contractual time and space]]. It promises hyper-spatial access to an alternative universe of semantic possibility, within whose parameters one can extend drafting into hitherto un-imagined, immeasurable dimensions, negative spaces, [[double-negative|''double''-negative]] spaces, dark energies — | Where the [[carve-out]] carves out from an exclusion of liabilty which is ''itself'' a kind of carve-out, we create some kind of ''[[carve-in]]''; an elaborate sculpting of the rock from which we extract our legal relations. The [[carve-out]] thus toys with our traditional notions of [[Space-time continuum|contractual time and space]]. It promises hyper-spatial access to an alternative universe of semantic possibility, within whose parameters one can extend drafting into hitherto un-imagined, immeasurable dimensions, negative spaces, [[double-negative|''double''-negative]] spaces, dark energies — Esher-esque grammatical constructions beyond anything imaginable in our traditional Euclidean geometry. This is quite exhilarating for the connoisseur. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*[[Negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | *[[Negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | ||
*[[Gross negligence]] | *[[Gross negligence]] | ||
*{{C2|Astrophysics|Cosmology}} | |||
Revision as of 11:22, 4 December 2020
|
The exception which, in the eyes of a diligent clerk, proves the rule. No rule, no legal proposition, is too complicated that it can’t be made more so by the skilled deployment of a carve-out. This is an invocation of the Fish Principle.
Carve-outs may go without saying — they usually do — and many can be regarded as a species of redundancy: of a piece with a “without limitation” or an “avoidance of doubt”. Yet how playful it can be, when the carve-out is from a “without limitation” or an “avoidance of doubt”! Some are woven from a stouter fibre, whose implied articulation no drafting, however doubtless, could presume.
Where the carve-out carves out from an exclusion of liabilty which is itself a kind of carve-out, we create some kind of carve-in; an elaborate sculpting of the rock from which we extract our legal relations. The carve-out thus toys with our traditional notions of contractual time and space. It promises hyper-spatial access to an alternative universe of semantic possibility, within whose parameters one can extend drafting into hitherto un-imagined, immeasurable dimensions, negative spaces, double-negative spaces, dark energies — Esher-esque grammatical constructions beyond anything imaginable in our traditional Euclidean geometry. This is quite exhilarating for the connoisseur.