Subject to: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|pe|}}A kind of evil twin to [[ | {{a|pe|}}A kind of evil twin to “[[notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained]]”, “'''subject to'''” or “subject always to” is special kind of throat-clearing paddery, any preamble prefaced by “subject to” — subject to any provisions herein to the contrary; subject to agreement to the contrary — speaks to nervousness about ones own drafting, or the sacred right of merchants to make and adjust their commercial arrangements as they see fit — the latter nervousness egged on by the rather perverse ruling in {{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} as to the legal effect of [[no oral modification]] clauses. | ||
“Subject ''always'' to” leaves open the door that other, less fulsomely expressed contingencies might be a bit spotty. Does a mere “subject to” mean things are only “subject ''sometimes'' to” — and if so how should one infer when, and when not? | “Subject ''always'' to” leaves open the door that other, less fulsomely expressed contingencies might be a bit spotty. Does a mere “subject to” mean things are only “subject ''sometimes'' to” — and if so how should one infer when, and when not? | ||
Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2022
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
A kind of evil twin to “notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereinbefore contained”, “subject to” or “subject always to” is special kind of throat-clearing paddery, any preamble prefaced by “subject to” — subject to any provisions herein to the contrary; subject to agreement to the contrary — speaks to nervousness about ones own drafting, or the sacred right of merchants to make and adjust their commercial arrangements as they see fit — the latter nervousness egged on by the rather perverse ruling in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited as to the legal effect of no oral modification clauses.
“Subject always to” leaves open the door that other, less fulsomely expressed contingencies might be a bit spotty. Does a mere “subject to” mean things are only “subject sometimes to” — and if so how should one infer when, and when not?