CAPS LOCK: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{box| | {{box|“[[Mediocre lawyer|Lawyers]] who think their caps lock keys are instant ‘make [[conspicuous]]’ buttons are deluded. In determining whether a term is [[conspicuous]], we look at more than formatting. [...] A sentence in capitals, buried deep within a long paragraph in [[capitals]] will probably not be [[deemed]] [[conspicuous]]. Formatting does matter, but conspicuousness ultimately turns on the likelihood that a [[reasonable person]] would actually see a term in an agreement. '''''Thus, it is entirely possible for text to be [[conspicuous]] without being in capitals'''''.” | ||
'' | (''Conspicuity added'') | ||
''[[In Re Bassett - Case Note|In Re Bassett]]'', 285 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2002)}} | |||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||
{{c|Case Note}} | |||
Revision as of 15:40, 4 January 2017
- “Lawyers who think their caps lock keys are instant ‘make conspicuous’ buttons are deluded. In determining whether a term is conspicuous, we look at more than formatting. [...] A sentence in capitals, buried deep within a long paragraph in capitals will probably not be deemed conspicuous. Formatting does matter, but conspicuousness ultimately turns on the likelihood that a reasonable person would actually see a term in an agreement. Thus, it is entirely possible for text to be conspicuous without being in capitals.”
(Conspicuity added)
In Re Bassett, 285 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2002)
See also
Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings