83,240
edits
The curious structure of an MTN: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Now the [[JC]] would be the last one to pooh-pooh the idea of a dystopian future — given the last few years he rather expects it at some stage, in fact — but, really: if you are eating caterpillars, presenting your coupons to the Luxembourg paying agent is going to be a long way down your list of priorities. | Now the [[JC]] would be the last one to pooh-pooh the idea of a dystopian future — given the last few years he rather expects it at some stage, in fact — but, really: if you are eating caterpillars, presenting your coupons to the Luxembourg paying agent is going to be a long way down your list of priorities. | ||
For reasons we can only put down to [[entropy]], international bond {{repackprov|terms and conditions}} are all shot through with laborious mechanical conditions that deal with how payments are made, where, by whom, on what conditions, to whom, should the notes be held outside a clearing system — a circumstance which, in the year of our Lord 2022, ''categorically'' will not happen — but which, thanks to the vagaries of historical appetite, meant might happen in a number of ways. | |||
===The logical structure of legal documents=== | |||
{{bluetable|align=right|width=50}} | {{bluetable|align=right|width=50}} | ||
'''On what kind of ball may be used with what kind of game''' <br> | '''On what kind of ball may be used with what kind of game''' <br> | ||
| Line 79: | Line 77: | ||
}}</small> | }}</small> | ||
{{tablebottom}} | {{tablebottom}} | ||
Now that being the case there are design principles that apply to how you articulate those alternatives. Any legal statement, however [[Fish Principle|Fish]]ily articulated, boils down to a logical proposition, rather like software code, with propositions, conditions, logic gates, if/then statements, and so on, only lawyers call them [[obligation]]s, [[Rights cumulative|right]]s, [[discretion]]s, [[proviso]]s, [[incluso]]s, [[option]]s, [[definitions]] and so on. | |||
''Most'' legal propositions have some formal logical content: an obligation is an if-then statement; condition precedent is an either-or gate. Some operators do not constrain or expand the propositions they act on — expressions like “(whether or not...)”, “(including without limitation...)”, “(for the avoidance of doubt...)”, “(may, but need not...)” — and so can be omitted from a logic map (just as they should be omitted from the draft), but how they are organised can make a difference to the formal complicatedness of the draft. | |||
This leads us on to [[Semantic code project|one of our pet interests]]: why are legal documents so convoluted, and what can we do to correct it? For this we need to delve into the underlying logical structure of a contract. | This leads us on to [[Semantic code project|one of our pet interests]]: why are legal documents so convoluted, and what can we do to correct it? For this we need to delve into the underlying logical structure of a contract. | ||
Any “logic gate” that splits a proposition into alternatives increases the inherent complicatedness of a proposition. | Any “logic gate” that splits a proposition into alternatives increases the inherent complicatedness of a proposition. | ||