To the fullest extent permissible by law: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
But a bit of research suggests that this gem found its way into the forensic world some time in the late 1970s. And as you’ll see to the right<ref>Original file [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maximum+extent+permissible+by+law&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc1 here]</ref>, it has flourished since its introduction. | But a bit of research suggests that this gem found its way into the forensic world some time in the late 1970s. And as you’ll see to the right<ref>Original file [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maximum+extent+permissible+by+law&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc1 here]</ref>, it has flourished since its introduction. | ||
The lilly-liveredness of | The lilly-liveredness of the statement makes us shudder. | ||
Whereas the | We know for certain that no-one saw fit to make this remark ''before'' the 1970s. What is it about the modern world that makes a [[legal eagle]] worry so? Does it not, subliminally, sent a contrary message: “I am ''saying'' I accept no responsibility but, tacitly, I suppose I realise, at some level, I probably do. You know, that old devil “the law’s fullest extent” might hunt me down and get me.” | ||
Whereas consider the simpler, bolder statement: “''The Issuer accepts '''no''' liability for this prospectus. None at all. FULL STOP love and kisses xox''” | |||
This leaves those disposed to vexatious litigation in no doubt where they stand. | |||
“Okay, okay, I ''get'' it. You aren’t responsible. ''Jesus''. Calm ''down'' already.” | “Okay, okay, I ''get'' it. You aren’t responsible. ''Jesus''. Calm ''down'' already.” | ||
Now, should it transpire that “the fullest extent of the | Now, should it transpire that “the fullest extent of the law” did not allow the Issuer off a hook to which its gentler passages might have turned a blind eye — and we quite like the idea there are lazy stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wet ’n’ wild as the far reaches of its fullest extent — but let’s just say: then for investors, happy days; they’re in the money, however blunt the Issuer has been in its disclaimer. But in that case, what would the Issuer have gained by tempering its disclaimer with this “fullest extent” vacillation in the interim? | ||
And ''not'' saying it hardly makes the Issuer’s position worse, does it? | And ''not'' saying it hardly makes the Issuer’s position worse, does it? | ||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 17:05, 15 November 2022
|
The JC’s guide to writing nice.™
|
It won’t be long in the life of a young lawyer before she comes across this delightfully flannelled subordinate clause:
The Issuer to the maximum extent permissible by law, accepts no liability for the contents of this prospectus...
She might pause briefly, on that first fumbling encounter, and wonder what legal mischief this incantation is calculated to ward off. Does the law assume that any contractual provision is deemed, unless you say to the contrary, to be half-hearted in its intent — a choked nine-iron back onto the fairway from behind a tree, and not a full-throated drive at the green?
God only knows, is this commentator’s remark. Actually, let’s face facts: God probably doesn’t know either.
But a bit of research suggests that this gem found its way into the forensic world some time in the late 1970s. And as you’ll see to the right[1], it has flourished since its introduction.
The lilly-liveredness of the statement makes us shudder.
We know for certain that no-one saw fit to make this remark before the 1970s. What is it about the modern world that makes a legal eagle worry so? Does it not, subliminally, sent a contrary message: “I am saying I accept no responsibility but, tacitly, I suppose I realise, at some level, I probably do. You know, that old devil “the law’s fullest extent” might hunt me down and get me.”
Whereas consider the simpler, bolder statement: “The Issuer accepts no liability for this prospectus. None at all. FULL STOP love and kisses xox”
This leaves those disposed to vexatious litigation in no doubt where they stand.
“Okay, okay, I get it. You aren’t responsible. Jesus. Calm down already.”
Now, should it transpire that “the fullest extent of the law” did not allow the Issuer off a hook to which its gentler passages might have turned a blind eye — and we quite like the idea there are lazy stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wet ’n’ wild as the far reaches of its fullest extent — but let’s just say: then for investors, happy days; they’re in the money, however blunt the Issuer has been in its disclaimer. But in that case, what would the Issuer have gained by tempering its disclaimer with this “fullest extent” vacillation in the interim?
And not saying it hardly makes the Issuer’s position worse, does it?