For the avoidance of doubt: Difference between revisions

For the avoidance of doubt (view source)

Revision as of 12:09, 27 June 2022

32 bytes added , 27 June 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,415

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 }}}}{{quote|''And to this end they built themselves a stupendous super-computer which was so amazingly intelligent that even before its databanks had been connected up it had started from “[[I think, therefore I am]]” and got as far as deducing the existence of rice pudding and income tax before anyone managed to turn it off.''
 :—Douglas Adams, {{hhgg}}}}
+===Should a lawyer ever say these words?===
+When one whose [[Legal eagle|livelihood]] — whose very professional status — attests to unusual semantic facility — uses the ugly expression “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, she surrenders without a shot to the demands of the English language. Even as a piece of English the phrase is hideous: who [[Nominalisation|converts]] “avoid” into a [[noun]]? What kind of glass-half-empty misanthrope sets as a guiding objective ''not being confusing''?
-A [[mediocre lawyer|solicitor]] — one licensed in the practice of semantic precision, after all — can scarcely indicate unconditional surrender to the demands of the English language more clearly than by using this abominable phrase. Even as a piece of English it is hideous: what kind of fiend [[Nominalisation|converts]] “avoid” into a [[noun]]? what kind of glass-half-empty misanthrope sets as his guiding objective the negative one of ''not being confusing''?
+“You had one job”, so the saying goes: it is to express yourself in a way that ''doesn’t contain doubt in the first place''. For what is the point of a {{tag|contract}} if not to clear up the confusion left by the primordial grunts, nods and mumblings of interacting merchants?
+Our plea falls upon deaf ears. We know this. This is how it usually plays — this is, honest to God, a real-life example:
-Why not say, positively, “to be clear”? I’ll tell you why not: because that would be to concede that, until now, one has ''not'' been. “You had one job”, so the saying goes, and as an officer of Her Majesty’s courts, that job was to craft your prose in a way that ''didn’t contain doubt in the first place''. For what is the point of a {{tag|contract}} if not to clear up the confusion so readily left by the primordial grunts, nods and inarticulate mumblings of merchants as they interact with each other?
+{{quote|''The [[chargor]] [[Assign|assigns]] and agrees to assign<ref>What, by the way, on earth was going though the mind of whoever confected that expression? “Assigns ''and agrees to assign'”'? Is this to distinguish from those who assign at gunpoint?</ref> absolutely, [[subject to]] the [[proviso]] for re-assignment on redemption, all of its rights in respect of the assigned receivables, together with the benefit of any security granted to the [[chargor]] thereof (and together in all cases, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], with the proceeds thereof).''}}
-This is how it usually plays — this is, honest to God, a real-life example:
+Do you feel reinvigorated with clarity, readers?
-:''The [[Chargor]] assigns and agrees to assign absolutely, [[subject to]] the [[proviso]] for re-assignment on redemption, all of its rights in respect of the Assigned Receivables, together with the benefit of any security granted to the [[Chargor]] thereof (and together in all cases, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], with the proceeds thereof).''
+Speaking of God, it is a little known fact that [[Descartes]]’ metaphysical epic {{br|Discourse on the Method}} was a spirited attempt to define the expression ''[[for the avoidance of doubt]]''. He started by asking, “what ''is'' doubt? Can we ever be sure that what we ''think'' is doubt, is, actually, ''doubt''? And if there is some doubt about that, how should we feel about it? Doubtful?”
-Do you feel reinvigorated with clarity and certainty, readers?
-Speaking of God, it is a little known fact that Descartes’  epic metaphysical tract {{br|Discourse on the Method}} was a spirited attempt to define the expression ''[[for the avoidance of doubt]]''. Descartes started by asking, “what ''is'' doubt? Can we ever be sure that what we ''think'' is doubt, is, actually, ''doubt''? And if there is some doubt about that, how should we feel about it? Doubtful?”
 Poor old Descartes never figured that out, but found himself — at least as a ''[[res cogitans|thinking thing]]'' — and he found God, too — well, he ''thought'' he did — along the way, so his day wasn’t totally wasted.
-Yet, ''what is doubt''? What is this existential flummery, that fogs our interior on even the sunniest day? Whence that numbing smoke that more thickly fills our mortal cockpit, day by day?
+Yet, ''what is doubt''? What is this existential flummery, that fogs our interior on even the sunniest day? Whence that numbing smoke, that more thickly fills our mortal cockpit, day by day?
-===Doubt avoidance as the job description===
+===Doubt-avoidance as the job description===
-One might make the case that the entire role of a commercial solicitor can be boiled down to “avoiding ''destructive'' doubt” that undermines commercial relationships. That’s the day job. Now there may be some nugatory regulatory cross-checking required, to be sure, but as [[regulation]] is typically designed not to be flakey or ambiguous — an ambition it does sometimes fall short of, I grant you — the job of advising on it ought not be the one that keeps home fires burning.
+One might make the case that the entire role of a commercial solicitor can be boiled down to “avoiding ''destructive'' doubt” that undermines commercial relationships. That’s the day job. Now there may be some nugatory regulatory cross-checks required, to be sure, but as [[regulation]] is typically designed not to be flakey or ambiguous — an ambition it does sometimes fall short of, I grant you — the job of advising on it ought not be the one that keeps home fires burning.
 {{doubt evasion}}