Carve-out: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The exception which, in the eyes of a diligent clerk, proves the rule. No rule is too complicated that it can't me made more so by the judicious use of a [...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The exception which, in the eyes of a [[ | {{a|cosmology|[[File:Carve-out.png|450px|thumb|center|a [[carve-out]] in a stable orbit with a [[carve-in]], yesterday.]]}}{{d|Carve-out|/kɑːv aʊt/|n|}} | ||
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. | |||
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 [[Space-time continuum|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|''double''-negative]] spaces, dark energies — Esher-esque grammatical constructions beyond anything imaginable in our traditional Euclidean geometry. This is quite exhilarating for the connoisseur. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Carve-in]] | |||
*The [[Fish Principle]] | |||
*[[Negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | |||
*[[Gross negligence]] | |||
*{{C|Cosmology}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:46, 9 March 2022
|
Carve-out
/kɑːv aʊt/ (n.)
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. 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 “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 — Esher-esque grammatical constructions beyond anything imaginable in our traditional Euclidean geometry. This is quite exhilarating for the connoisseur.