Headings: Difference between revisions

468 bytes added ,  16 August 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
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 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.
If you are anything like the [[JC]], the headings are the only part of the contract you ''do'', with any regularity, read. Headings orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide ''context'' in a legal world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from helping understand what the document might mean? We are at a loss.<ref>It may be, in times past, the headings were added later by unqualified clerks, or something — I am totally making this up — but that isn’t how things work now.</ref> At best, this provides cover to the miscreant who later claims an interpretation the ''context'' — that is, the ''heading'' the term sat under — indicates is plainly fatuous.


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>
Look at it the other way: why would lawyers — surely the brain surgeons of our language — add words to a legal contract if they wanted them to be ignored? How, in a world overflowing with unnecessary words, can that be a good idea? At best, this is pure ''[[waste]]''. But would a ''real'' neurosurgeon, under the hood, make some harmless extra swipes with her scalpel for the hell of it?


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.
Look, if you don’t want headings to mean anything, 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. attorney]]s: this is a rhetorical question.</ref>
 
If, perversely, you ''care'' about getting to “yes”, and therefore 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 follow the framework you have set out.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}