If and to the extent that: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{a|plainenglish|}}{{dpn||conj|}}A laboured legalism that means no more than “to the extent that” or “as far as”, the reason being “that to no extent at all” is another way of saying “if not”. {{sa}} *If"
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|plainenglish|}}{{dpn||conj|}}A laboured legalism that means no more than “[[to the extent that]]” or “[[as far as]]”, the reason being “that to no extent at all” is another way of saying “if not”.
{{a|plainenglish|}}{{dpn||conj|}}A laboured legalism that means no more than “[[to the extent that]]” or “[[as far as]]”, the reason being “that to no extent at all” is another way of saying “if not”. There are, as we know, to conditionals: the unlimited if and the limited to the extent that. The combination is logically redundant.
 
Consider these somewhat made up, but plausible alternatives:
 
{{quote|“A Party may disclose the Confidential Information ''if'' required by any law, court or regulatory agency ...” }}
And
{{quote|“A Party may disclose the Confidential Information ''to the extent'' required by any law, court or regulatory agency ...” }}
 
The first, on a strict reading, permits disclosure of all Confidential Information should any of it be required, but none if it is not; the second allows disclosure of only the Confidential Information that is reasonably required (and if none is required, none).


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[If]]
*[[If]]

Revision as of 14:33, 26 June 2023

Towards more picturesque speech
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

If and to the extent that
(conj.)
A laboured legalism that means no more than “to the extent that” or “as far as”, the reason being “that to no extent at all” is another way of saying “if not”. There are, as we know, to conditionals: the unlimited if and the limited to the extent that. The combination is logically redundant.

Consider these somewhat made up, but plausible alternatives:

“A Party may disclose the Confidential Information if required by any law, court or regulatory agency ...”

And

“A Party may disclose the Confidential Information to the extent required by any law, court or regulatory agency ...”

The first, on a strict reading, permits disclosure of all Confidential Information should any of it be required, but none if it is not; the second allows disclosure of only the Confidential Information that is reasonably required (and if none is required, none).

See also