Lehman: Difference between revisions

142 bytes added ,  31 October 2020
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 10: Line 10:
Similarly, [[Magic circle law firm|opposing counsel]] — sometimes, even your own — will resist any stroke of your pen against their mangled syntax on the solemn, but unelucidated, pretext that they “lived through the [[Lehman]] administration” and are so “scarred by the experience”<ref>Look, let’s face facts, campers: the [[Lehman]] collapse was hardly some POW chain-gang on Burma Railway for our learned friends, so hold those crocodile tears, okay?</ref> that any record must state, in [[legal triplicate]]s, obvious truisms, [[redundancies]] and [[No violation - Representation|unfalsifable representations]] — you know the kind of dismal [[verbiage]] — and under no circumstances can one leave anything unsaid and at the mercy of the common sense, capacity for formal logic, or ability to parse a sentence phrased in idiomatic English of those learned practitioners who occupy the [[Queen’s Bench Division]].  
Similarly, [[Magic circle law firm|opposing counsel]] — sometimes, even your own — will resist any stroke of your pen against their mangled syntax on the solemn, but unelucidated, pretext that they “lived through the [[Lehman]] administration” and are so “scarred by the experience”<ref>Look, let’s face facts, campers: the [[Lehman]] collapse was hardly some POW chain-gang on Burma Railway for our learned friends, so hold those crocodile tears, okay?</ref> that any record must state, in [[legal triplicate]]s, obvious truisms, [[redundancies]] and [[No violation - Representation|unfalsifable representations]] — you know the kind of dismal [[verbiage]] — and under no circumstances can one leave anything unsaid and at the mercy of the common sense, capacity for formal logic, or ability to parse a sentence phrased in idiomatic English of those learned practitioners who occupy the [[Queen’s Bench Division]].  


In other words, yes, you ''do'' have to say “this [[confidentiality agreement]] may be executed in [[counterpart]]s, each of which [[shall]] be [[deemed]] to be [[deemed]] an original”, lest the sky should fall in on your head.
In other words, yes, you ''do'' have to say “this [[confidentiality agreement]] may be executed in [[counterpart]]s, each of which [[shall]] be [[deemed]] to be [[deemed]] an original”, lest the sky should fall in on your head as surely as it did on [[Lehman]]’s.
 
[[Lehmans]], on the other hand, carries on in rude health. As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}