Cross references: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|}}Like excessive levels in automatic [[paragraph numbering]], a plague of cross-references in a contract is a telltale sign of legal over engineering. If you overuse clause cross-references — “[[subject to]] clause 12.5(g)(viii)(B)” sort of thing, especially if said clause is nowhere near the one at hand — you should be asking yourself stern questions about how well-organised and | {{a|plainenglish|}}Like excessive levels in automatic [[paragraph numbering]], a plague of cross-references in a contract is a telltale sign of legal over engineering. If you overuse clause cross-references — “[[subject to]] clause 12.5(g)(viii)(B)” sort of thing, especially if said clause is nowhere near the one at hand — you should be asking yourself stern questions about how well-organised and elegant your contractual prose really is. | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Paragraph numbering]] | *[[Paragraph numbering]] | ||
*[[Subject to]] | *[[Subject to]] | ||
Revision as of 09:18, 19 August 2022
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Like excessive levels in automatic paragraph numbering, a plague of cross-references in a contract is a telltale sign of legal over engineering. If you overuse clause cross-references — “subject to clause 12.5(g)(viii)(B)” sort of thing, especially if said clause is nowhere near the one at hand — you should be asking yourself stern questions about how well-organised and elegant your contractual prose really is.