82,891
edits
Definitions: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
'''Where'''? If a term appears throughout the agreement, put its definition in a glossary or definitions section at the ''end''. This is a core [[design]] principle. Definitions should be bits of extraneous detail that are not critical to the general thrust of the text, but useful amplification should a reader need it: rather like footnotes. For God’s sake, don’t put them at the ''start'' of an agreement. Would you start reading a book with the footnotes? If the expression only appears in one clause, define it inline in the clause. Guiding principle: how easy is it to find? Is the reader’s “[[user experience]]” better putting the definition at the back or inline? Use your common sense. | '''Where'''? If a term appears throughout the agreement, put its definition in a glossary or definitions section at the ''end''. This is a core [[design]] principle. Definitions should be bits of extraneous detail that are not critical to the general thrust of the text, but useful amplification should a reader need it: rather like footnotes. For God’s sake, don’t put them at the ''start'' of an agreement. Would you start reading a book with the footnotes? If the expression only appears in one clause, define it inline in the clause. Guiding principle: how easy is it to find? Is the reader’s “[[user experience]]” better putting the definition at the back or inline? Use your common sense. | ||
===''When'' to use definitions=== | ===''When'' to use definitions=== | ||
In two cases: | In two cases: | ||
| Line 33: | Line 27: | ||
''Git''. | ''Git''. | ||
==Components== | |||
===The signifier=== | |||
Make the signifier — the label — as short and snappy as you can whilst remaining intuitive enough that an attentive reader can easily infer to what what it refers, so the reader needing to flip to the definitions to see what the signifier means. You might not know what “'''ERISA'''” means first time you come across it, but once you do, you will never forget it (trust me) so it is an excellent signifier for “The [[Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]] (Pub.L. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829, enacted September 2, 1974, codified in part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18) as amended, restated or superseded from time to time.” | |||
By contrast “'''Applicable Amount'''”, “'''Relevant Date'''”, or “'''Notice'''” — these are ''not'' effective signifiers. Applicable to what? Relevant to what? Notice of what? If you are eighty pages into a security trust deed at 3 o’clock the morning before signing, stumbling across as meaningless a signifier as this will not help your frame of mind. | |||
On the other hand, you can take things too far: “'''Noteholder Early Redemption Option Exercise Notice'''” — real life example — barely saves any space at all, especially when all it means is “a notice in the form set out in Schedule 4 (''Form of Noteholder Early Redemption Option Exercise Notice'') of the Agency Agreement.” This definition falls into the other trap of being so intuitive that is doesn’t need to be a definition at all (see ''When to use definitions'' above). | |||
===The definition as [[Biggs Hoson]]=== | ===The definition as [[Biggs Hoson]]=== | ||
The final way to use definitions is as some kind of hymn to pedantry. This appeals to fans of [[Havid Dilbert]]’s programme to find a complete and consistent set of axiomatic legal propositions. [[Dilbert’s programme]] eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any agreement, on the grounds that it opens the way to [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. Thus where we find undefined words, we define them ''exactly as they are'', [[for the avoidance of doubt|to avoid a doubt]] so minuscule it heartily crosses the threshold between completeness and paranoia: | The final way to use definitions is as some kind of hymn to pedantry. This appeals to fans of [[Havid Dilbert]]’s programme to find a complete and consistent set of axiomatic legal propositions. [[Dilbert’s programme]] eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any agreement, on the grounds that it opens the way to [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. Thus where we find undefined words, we define them ''exactly as they are'', [[for the avoidance of doubt|to avoid a doubt]] so minuscule it heartily crosses the threshold between completeness and paranoia: | ||