82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Interpretation to Interpretation and construction) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|boilerplate|}}[[Interpretation and construction]] breaks down into: | {{a|boilerplate|}}[[Interpretation and construction]] breaks down into: | ||
*[[ | *'''[[Interpretation]]''': How one should generally construe generic phrases: should singulars include plurals; masculine include the feminine and non-binary shades between; should references to [[principal]]s include their [[agent]] or even [[affiliate]]s, should references to [[contract]]s, [[statute]]s and [[regulation]]s be understood as originally executed/enacted or as subsequently amended [[from time to time]] — don’t giggle at the back, Blenkinsop Minor: this might seem obvious to the point of banality to ''you'', but it keeps [[ERISA]] attorneys awake at night, and populates and animates their most gruesome nightmares.<ref>Doubt as to whether a statute should be construed as amended is at the heart of [[ERISA netting]] problem.</ref> | ||
*[[Construction]] | *'''[[Construction]]''': when approaching the semiotic task of ''construing'' these elegantly turned phrases, whether one should pay any attention to [[headings]], and which prevails should one part of the agreement conflict with another — in a single unitary agreement, a bit of a bish, needless to say, but in a hierarchically-structured [[master agreement]], part of the design) | ||
*[[Definitions]]. Now there is one thing we all know. Commercial lawyers ''luuuuuurve'' [[definitions]]. | *[[Definitions]]. Now there is one thing we all know. Commercial lawyers ''luuuuuurve'' [[definitions]]. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |