Template:Without limitation and ejusdem generis: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== | ===Without limitation and [[ejusdem generis]]=== | ||
“Without limitation” is surely tedious enough, but what is a legal eagle’s most sacred mission if is not to make the tedious tediouser? In furtherance of that clause we recently spotted the following in that most saintedly over-vexed of all contracts, an ''[[NDA]]'': a specific [[carve-out]] for application of the “[[ejusdem generis]]” rule: | |||
:“including '''([[without limitation]] or application of the [[ejusdem generis]] rule)''' data (including ''[ ... and here follows a long and tedious catalogue of the various forms that data can take concluding with cat memes, GIFs and any and all other information, howsoever described]'', inasmuch and insofar as it relates to the Discloser.” | :“including '''([[without limitation]] or ''application of the [[ejusdem generis]] rule'')''' data (including ''[ ... and here follows a long and tedious catalogue of the various forms that data can take concluding with cat memes, GIFs and any and all other information, howsoever described]'', inasmuch and insofar as it relates to the Discloser.” | ||
This, | This, colleagues, is [[legal eagle]]ry taken to extraordinary, self-contradictory lengths. For what is the purpose of a laundry list of specifics in the first place, if not to somehow craft, contextualise or otherwise put some meaningful boundaries on a vague and indeterminate general expression which you fear might otherwise have impossibly wide application? If all you want is to capture “all information”, just ''say'' “all information”, and be done with it: don’t trouble your counterparty with both a laundry list which [[Q.E.D.]], is ''patently'' redundant ''and'' an [[ejusdem generis]] [[carve-out]], which underscores that fact. | ||
Revision as of 15:19, 10 January 2022
Without limitation and ejusdem generis
“Without limitation” is surely tedious enough, but what is a legal eagle’s most sacred mission if is not to make the tedious tediouser? In furtherance of that clause we recently spotted the following in that most saintedly over-vexed of all contracts, an NDA: a specific carve-out for application of the “ejusdem generis” rule:
- “including (without limitation or application of the ejusdem generis rule) data (including [ ... and here follows a long and tedious catalogue of the various forms that data can take concluding with cat memes, GIFs and any and all other information, howsoever described], inasmuch and insofar as it relates to the Discloser.”
This, colleagues, is legal eaglery taken to extraordinary, self-contradictory lengths. For what is the purpose of a laundry list of specifics in the first place, if not to somehow craft, contextualise or otherwise put some meaningful boundaries on a vague and indeterminate general expression which you fear might otherwise have impossibly wide application? If all you want is to capture “all information”, just say “all information”, and be done with it: don’t trouble your counterparty with both a laundry list which Q.E.D., is patently redundant and an ejusdem generis carve-out, which underscores that fact.