Carve-out: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|g|
{{a|g|
[[File:Carve-out.png|450px|thumb|center|a [[carve-out]] in a stable orbit with a [[carve-in]], yesterday.]]
[[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]].  
}}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]]. This is an invocation of the [[Fish Principle]].


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.
Line 9: Line 9:
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Carve-in]]
*[[Carve-in]]
*The [[Fish Principle]]
*[[Negligence, fraud or wilful default]]
*[[Negligence, fraud or wilful default]]
*[[Gross negligence]]
*[[Gross negligence]]