Sharpened stick
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
During the snow melt in 1941, Lance-Corporal Pinterman’s mother Gladys was swept away in an avalanche. Group Captain Cocklecarrot summoned Sergeant Baxter-Morley into his office.
“Sergeant, I need you to pass on the news to Pinterman that is mother has died.”
“SAH!” Baxter-Morley snapped off a salute and exited the office, abrim with purpose.
At reveille next morning, the drill-sergeant ran through his usual order of the day. “Johnston and Hodgkinson, report for guard duty. Fotherington-Thomas, you are on latrines. Pinterman, your mother is dead: have the morning off. The rest of you, report to Lieutenant Branton on the assault course. All right, men: fall out.”
Pinterman — a sensitive soul at the best of times — was devastated. But worse was to come: not a month later, his father also died, taken by a bear. Group-Captain Cocklecarrot once again called in the drill-sergeant in. “I say, Baxter-Morley, Pinterman’s father popped his clogs. I need to let him know.”
“I see, sah.” The drill sergeant span on his heels but his commanding officer interrupted him.
“Now, look here, Sergeant: the poor chap didn’t get out of his bed for two weeks last time. How about being a little more tactful this time?”
“SAH!” The sergeant clicked heels and exited, calling the unit to assemble at once.
“All right men, fall in. Now we are conducting a parenthood survey. Every one of you whose father is still alive, take three steps forward. PINTERMAN WHAT THE DEVIL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?”
There are ways of saying things.
When drafting a legal contract, you might expect experienced lawyers would avoid writing in a way that will feel to opponents like the poke of a sharpened stick in the ribs.
These are phrases that cost nothing, but can only inflame passions that you and your client are best suited by being quietened down. Take a little behavioural psychology to the table with you:
Lack of trust indicators
Any time it seems you are straining to button down any doubt, however fanciful, you impute to your counterparty an air of bad faith which will — even though it may be fully justified — put up hackles. Clarity and doubt avoidance is the goal, but there are ways of achieving this without looking like you wouldn't trust your client further than you can throw it.
- Unnecessary definitions: Resist the temptation, which many legal eagles cannot, to define every variable term in your contract. The simply apppearance of adefinition - the brackets, quotes, and bold — punctuates your text with an air that we are lot leaving anything to chance in the face of an opportunistic cad such as you. That is not an impression one normally likes to give to ones customer, and it may have the unintended consequence that your customer sees it as an invitation to be opportunistic, should there be any holes in your punctillaiety, or at the very least to push back wherever it feels you have drawn your boundaries too widely. Needless to say any time spent negotiating clarifications is time wasted; time spent arguing about the definition of “the customer” is positively damaging.
- Pedantic clarity tics: Expressions, which finance lawyers love, like “any and all”, “one or more”, “whether or not”, “including without limitation”, “unless expressly agreed in writing” betray not only a lack of confidence in the plain meaning of words, but a lack of trust in the intentions of your customer.
Allocate responsibility, not liability
Put things in the positive. Rather than cataloguing the things one shall, or shall not be liable for — which presents breach of contract as the operating presumption — allocate responsiblity. So, instead of “we accept no liability for our advice or the content of anything we say or do ...” say “you accept responsibility for the decision whether to execute and will obtain such independent advice as you consider necessary to assessing the merits of the transaction”.