Headings: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|contract|{{subtable|'''Sample''':<br>“Headings are for ease of reference only and shall be ignored in construing this Agreement”}}}}What is it that the [[legal eagle]] so distrusts about headings? | {{a|contract|{{subtable|'''Sample''':<br>“Headings are for ease of reference only and shall be ignored in construing this Agreement”}}}}What is it that the [[legal eagle]] so distrusts about headings? | ||
If you are anything like the [[JC]], the [[headings]] are the only part of the contract you ''do'', with any regularity, read. They orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide ''context'' in a world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from your semantic consideration? We are at a loss. At best to do so provides | If you are anything like the [[JC]], the [[headings]] are the only part of the contract you ''do'', with any regularity, read. They orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide ''context'' in a world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from your semantic consideration? We are at a loss. At best, to do so provides cover to pernicious arguments a miscreant might raise at a later stage to justify enforcing, or resisting, a contractual provision the ''context'' indicated was meant for another purpose altogether. | ||
Why would you put words in a legal contract if you wanted them to be ignored? Is that not the definition of [[waste]]? Look, if you don’t want headings to count, don’t ''use'' the damn things, and expect your document to be the kind of grey, unpunctuated [[entropic]] sludge of Times New Roman that emanates from every [[U.S. law firm|US law firm]]. Is that really what you want?<ref>U/S. attorneys: this is a rhetorical question.</ref> | |||
If, perversely, you ''care'' about your reader’s easy comprehension, use headings to structure your argument<ref>A legal contract is, after fashion, an “argument”.</ref> but do not then complain if your readers expect your argument to, actually, follow the framework you have set out. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{isdaprov|Headings}} in the ISDA | *{{isdaprov|Headings}} in the ISDA | ||
*[[ | *[[Interpretation]] and [[construction]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 11:03, 16 August 2021
What is it that the legal eagle so distrusts about headings?
If you are anything like the JC, the headings are the only part of the contract you do, with any regularity, read. They orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide context in a world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from your semantic consideration? We are at a loss. At best, to do so provides cover to pernicious arguments a miscreant might raise at a later stage to justify enforcing, or resisting, a contractual provision the context indicated was meant for another purpose altogether.
Why would you put words in a legal contract if you wanted them to be ignored? Is that not the definition of waste? Look, if you don’t want headings to count, don’t use the damn things, and expect your document to be the kind of grey, unpunctuated entropic sludge of Times New Roman that emanates from every US law firm. Is that really what you want?[1]
If, perversely, you care about your reader’s easy comprehension, use headings to structure your argument[2] but do not then complain if your readers expect your argument to, actually, follow the framework you have set out.
See also
- Headings in the ISDA
- Interpretation and construction