May, but shall not be obliged to: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Redundancy. [[Celery]]. The [[bleeding obvious]].  
{{a|plainenglish|}}Redundancy. [[Celery]]. The [[bleeding obvious]].  


Timid drafting for [[Mediocre lawyer|members of the legal profession]] whose mastery of the language in which they ply their craft is so compromised as to struggle with the difference between [[may]] and [[must]].
Timid drafting for [[legal eagle|members of the legal profession]] whose mastery of the language in which they ply their craft is so compromised as to struggle with the difference between [[may]] and [[must]].


Don’t be that person.
Don’t be that person.


“[[May]]” confers an ''[[option]]'', not an ''[[obligation]]''.
“[[May]]” confers an ''[[option]]'', not an ''[[obligation]]''. There is one time that you should use this expression in a contract: when you are conferring on a party a right that party ''would not otherwise have''. “Party A ''may'' cross Party B’s private land to access the roadway” is a good use of the word “may”. “Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing ''[which is about something else altogether]'', and [[for the avoidance of doubt]], Party B ''may'' telephone his elderly aunt at any time without limitation” is ''not'' a good use of “may”, or the trees on which such a pointless sentence may, [[for the time being]] and [[from time to time]], be printed.
 
{{sa}}
 
*[[Shall be entitled to]]
{{plainenglish}}

Revision as of 18:26, 1 February 2021

Towards more picturesque speech™


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Redundancy. Celery. The bleeding obvious.

Timid drafting for members of the legal profession whose mastery of the language in which they ply their craft is so compromised as to struggle with the difference between may and must.

Don’t be that person.

“May” confers an option, not an obligation. There is one time that you should use this expression in a contract: when you are conferring on a party a right that party would not otherwise have. “Party A may cross Party B’s private land to access the roadway” is a good use of the word “may”. “Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing [which is about something else altogether], and for the avoidance of doubt, Party B may telephone his elderly aunt at any time without limitation” is not a good use of “may”, or the trees on which such a pointless sentence may, for the time being and from time to time, be printed.

See also

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=May,_but_shall_not_be_obliged_to&oldid=53433"