Carve-out: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}The exception which, in the eyes of a [[legal eagle|diligent clerk]], proves the rule. No rule, no legal proposition, is too complicated that it can’t be made more so by the skilled deployment of a [[carve-out]].  
{{a|g|
[[File:Carve-out.png|450px|thumb|center|a [[carve-out]] in a stable orbit with a [[carve-in]], yesterday.]]
}}The exception which, in the eyes of a [[legal eagle|diligent clerk]], proves the rule. No rule, no legal proposition, is too complicated that it can’t be made more so by the skilled deployment of a [[carve-out]].  


Carve-outs may go without saying — they usually do — and many can be regarded as a species of redundancy: of a piece with a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”. Yet how playful it can be, when the [[carve-out]] is ''from'' a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”! Some are woven from a stouter fibre, whose implied articulation no drafting, however doubtless, could presume.
Carve-outs may go without saying — they usually do — and many can be regarded as a species of redundancy: of a piece with a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”. Yet how playful it can be, when the [[carve-out]] is ''from'' a “[[without limitation]]” or an “[[for the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]]”! Some are woven from a stouter fibre, whose implied articulation no drafting, however doubtless, could presume.

Revision as of 13:54, 29 October 2020

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
a carve-out in a stable orbit with a carve-in, yesterday.


Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

The exception which, in the eyes of a diligent clerk, proves the rule. No rule, no legal proposition, is too complicated that it can’t be made more so by the skilled deployment of a carve-out.

Carve-outs may go without saying — they usually do — and many can be regarded as a species of redundancy: of a piece with a “without limitation” or an “avoidance of doubt”. Yet how playful it can be, when the carve-out is from a “without limitation” or an “avoidance of doubt”! Some are woven from a stouter fibre, whose implied articulation no drafting, however doubtless, could presume.

Where the carve-out carves out from an exclusion of liabilty which is itself a kind of carve-out, we create some kind of carve-in; an elaborate sculpting of the rock from which we extract our legal relations. The carve-out thus toys with our traditional notions of contractual time and space. It promises hyper-spatial access to an alternative universe of semantic possibility, within whose parameters one can extend drafting into hitherto un-imagined, immeasurable dimensions, negative spaces, double-negative spaces, dark energies — Esheresque grammatical constructions beyond anything imaginable in our traditional Euclidean geometry. This is quite exhilarating for the connoisseur.

See also