Ejusdem generis: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|plainenglish|}}The [[ejusdem generis]] rule of [[statutory interpretation]] — which we {{tag|contract}} hacks like when it suits us to extend by analogy into [[contractual interpretation]] — says wherever general words follow specific words, the general words should be read to include only objects similar in nature to those specific words. | ||
So, “any uprising, riot, looting, organised disobedience or other civil commotion” would not | So, “any uprising, riot, looting, organised disobedience or other civil commotion” would not include “ironic flash-mob performances of songs from ''The Sound of Music'', however tiresome or poorly organised”, as long as not specifically violent in aspect (of course, there is every chance that passers by would become spontaneously violent upon being confronted by an ironic flash mob). | ||
{{ | Recently spotted: specifically carving out [[ejusdem generis]] as an articulation of the [[without limitation]] trope: | ||
:“including ([[without limitation]] or application of the [[ejusdem generis]] rule) data (including risk and historic, know-how, formulae, processes, designs, personnel and operational information, photographs, drawings, specifications, computer code, persona data, portfolio data and any other information or data relating to the business, staff, operations or trading strategies of the company or the finds it manages”. This, of all places, in a ''[[confidentiality agreement]]''. This is [[legal eagle]]ry taken to an extraordinary, self-contradictory lengths. | |||
For what is the purpose of a laundry list of specifics, if not to somehow craft, contextualise or otherwise put some meaningful boundaries on a general expression which might otherwise have impossibly wide application? If you just want to capturew all information, just say all information, and don’t bother with the laundry list ''or'' the [[ejusdem generis]] carve-out. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
Revision as of 10:19, 29 October 2020
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
The ejusdem generis rule of statutory interpretation — which we contract hacks like when it suits us to extend by analogy into contractual interpretation — says wherever general words follow specific words, the general words should be read to include only objects similar in nature to those specific words.
So, “any uprising, riot, looting, organised disobedience or other civil commotion” would not include “ironic flash-mob performances of songs from The Sound of Music, however tiresome or poorly organised”, as long as not specifically violent in aspect (of course, there is every chance that passers by would become spontaneously violent upon being confronted by an ironic flash mob).
Recently spotted: specifically carving out ejusdem generis as an articulation of the without limitation trope:
- “including (without limitation or application of the ejusdem generis rule) data (including risk and historic, know-how, formulae, processes, designs, personnel and operational information, photographs, drawings, specifications, computer code, persona data, portfolio data and any other information or data relating to the business, staff, operations or trading strategies of the company or the finds it manages”. This, of all places, in a confidentiality agreement. This is legal eaglery taken to an extraordinary, self-contradictory lengths.
For what is the purpose of a laundry list of specifics, if not to somehow craft, contextualise or otherwise put some meaningful boundaries on a general expression which might otherwise have impossibly wide application? If you just want to capturew all information, just say all information, and don’t bother with the laundry list or the ejusdem generis carve-out.