Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance: Difference between revisions

Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance (view source)

28 bytes removed , 20 February 2021

no edit summary

82,900

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|casenote|{{stupidbanker}}}}
+{{a|casenote|{{stupidbanker}}}}Now, a Court of Appeal judge is undoubtedly a guardian of the Queen’s English, and far be it from this snitty little rogue to have an opinion (I mean, can you imagine?), but [[Lord Justice Waller]]’s habit of referring to a corporation as if it were<ref>Note: [[subjunctive]]!</ref> a ''crowd'', and therefore a [[plural]] is ''an abomination''.
-===A word about [[pronoun]]s===
-A Court of Appeal judge is undoubtedly a guardian of the Queen’s English, and far be it from this snitty little rogue to have an opinion (I mean, can you imagine?), but [[Lord Justice Waller]]’s habit of referring to a corporation as if it were<ref>Note: [[subjunctive]]!</ref> a ''crowd'', and therefore a [[plural]] is ''an abomination''.
 It is galling enough when members of the internet do this, to their favourite [[Nigel molesworth|foopball]] teams or pop bands, where there is at least an argument, however misguided, that the whole is no more than the collection of its members, but a [[corporation]], under his honour’s own freaking ''law'', is ''its own [[legal personality]]''. It is — must be, at a profoundly [[ontological]] level — a ''singular'' entity.