Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions

Good luck in court with that one (view source)

170 bytes added , 15 September 2020

no edit summary

82,885

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{A|devil|}}
-A counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is in defence of simple language and and in resistance of flannel.
+A counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is, in defence of simple language and resistance of [[flannel]].
-Legal eagles and nothing if not creative. They're imaginative bounds run to the paranoid comma and every legal negotiator will find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe which might arise if if a counterpart should willfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract.
+[[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds towards the paranoid, away from practical common sense at every opportunity. Every legal negotiator will find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe ''which'' might arise if if a counterpart should willfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. The difficulty of resisting this sort of passive-aggressive logic is articulated in the [[anal paradox]]
 By way of example from a [[confidentiality agreement]]: one might expect the following pedantic addition to a simple definition: ''“'''Confidential information'''” means all information relating to to a party {{insert|or otherwise relating to that party’ or its affairs}}...''