Template:In writing capsule: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
“[[In writing]]” means ''recorded for posterity, in words ingestable by means of the eyes, as opposed to the ears''. This is not the OED definition, I grant you — I made it up just now — but it zeroes in on the immutable fact that, whether it is on parchment, paper, cathode ray tube, LED screen or electronic reader, you take in [[in writing|writing]] by ''looking at it''. Not [[orally]] — from the mouth — or for that matter, ''aurally'' — to the ears nor, in the [[JC]]’s favourite example, via semaphore, by a chap waving flags from a distant hill, but in visible sentences, made up of visual words. | “[[In writing]]” means ''recorded for posterity, in words ingestable by means of the eyes, as opposed to the ears''. This is not the OED definition, I grant you — I made it up just now — but it zeroes in on the immutable fact that, whether it is on parchment, paper, cathode ray tube, LED screen or electronic reader, you take in [[in writing|writing]] by ''looking at it''. Not [[orally]] — from the mouth — or for that matter, ''aurally'' — to the ears nor, in the [[JC]]’s favourite example, via semaphore, by a chap waving flags from a distant hill, but in visible sentences, made up of visual words. | ||
Could writing include | Could writing include GIFs? [[Emoji]]s? We ''suppose'' so — but do you “write” them, as such? — but to the wider question “can [[emoji]]s be contractually significant?” the answer is undoubtedly ''yes''. | ||
Acceptance, to be legally binding, ''need not be “in writing”''. Nor “orally”. Acceptance just needs to be ''clear''. ''Whether'' one has accepted is a matter for the laws of ''[[evidence]]''. There is little doubt that one who has [[signed, sealed and delivered]] a parchment deed by quill in counterpart has accepted its contents — it is about as good evidence as you could ask for, short of the fellow admitting it in cross-examination — but a merchant need not, and often does not, reach this gold standard when concluding commercial arrangements about town. We have all stumbled morosely into the newsagent, pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of ''The Racing Post'', not having exchanged a word with the proprietor — barely making even eye contact. Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction? | Acceptance, to be legally binding, ''need not be “in writing”''. Nor “orally”. Acceptance just needs to be ''clear''. ''Whether'' one has accepted is a matter for the laws of ''[[evidence]]''. There is little doubt that one who has [[signed, sealed and delivered]] a parchment deed by quill in counterpart has accepted its contents — it is about as good evidence as you could ask for, short of the fellow admitting it in cross-examination — but a merchant need not, and often does not, reach this gold standard when concluding commercial arrangements about town. We have all stumbled morosely into the newsagent, pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of ''The Racing Post'', not having exchanged a word with the proprietor — barely making even eye contact. Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction? | ||
Revision as of 16:44, 16 January 2023
“In writing” means recorded for posterity, in words ingestable by means of the eyes, as opposed to the ears. This is not the OED definition, I grant you — I made it up just now — but it zeroes in on the immutable fact that, whether it is on parchment, paper, cathode ray tube, LED screen or electronic reader, you take in writing by looking at it. Not orally — from the mouth — or for that matter, aurally — to the ears nor, in the JC’s favourite example, via semaphore, by a chap waving flags from a distant hill, but in visible sentences, made up of visual words.
Could writing include GIFs? Emojis? We suppose so — but do you “write” them, as such? — but to the wider question “can emojis be contractually significant?” the answer is undoubtedly yes.
Acceptance, to be legally binding, need not be “in writing”. Nor “orally”. Acceptance just needs to be clear. Whether one has accepted is a matter for the laws of evidence. There is little doubt that one who has signed, sealed and delivered a parchment deed by quill in counterpart has accepted its contents — it is about as good evidence as you could ask for, short of the fellow admitting it in cross-examination — but a merchant need not, and often does not, reach this gold standard when concluding commercial arrangements about town. We have all stumbled morosely into the newsagent, pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of The Racing Post, not having exchanged a word with the proprietor — barely making even eye contact. Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction?
Even for more substantial interactions there is, in theory, a whole ecosystem of non-verbal communications — winks, nods, wags, shaken heads, facial tics and cocked eyebrows — and nor should we forget, those who stand on distant hills and communicate by smoke signal, Greek heroes who mis-communicate their safe return by sail colour or modern admirals who transmit instructions to the fleet by means of flag sequence.
Any of these can, in theory, convey offer, acceptance and consideration as well can a written or oral communication.