Nor anyone acting on its behalf: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:15, 23 March 2020

George Orwell on plain English \| SEC guidance on plain EnglishPlain English Anatomy™ Noun \| Verb \| Adjective \| Adverb \| Preposition \| Conjunction \| Latin \| Germany \| Flannel \| Legal triplicate \| Nominalisation \| Murder your darlings Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Plain English Drafting Metaphor

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

That fabulous Latin construction nemo dat quod non habet ought, but does not, nix that tedious drafting construction: “neither X, nor anyone acting on its behalf, may do Y”.

For if, by the lights of the law, a principal has no right to do a thing, it follows as a matter of ineffable Latin logic that neither may her ox, ass, servant, agent, attorney, nominee, delegate or other mortal representative do that thing on her behalf: nemo dat quod non habet: one cannot give someone else a power one does not have oneself.

Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story — but even here, this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a representative would not thereby be acting under her own power, not courtesy of yours, and would not be acting on your behalf at all. Seeing as she wouldn’t be your representative in the first place, this purported stricture will fall upon stony contractual ground.

So, be bold, young eagle of the law: wherever you see this construction, strike it from the record.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''See also [[delegation]].''
+{{pe}}That fabulous {{t|Latin}} construction [[nemo dat quod non habet]] ought, but does not, nix that tedious drafting construction: “neither X, ''[[nor anyone acting on its behalf]]'', may do Y”.
-That fabulous {{t|Latin}} construction [[nemo dat quod non habet]] ought, but does not, nix that tedious drafting construction: “neither X, ''[[nor anyone acting on its behalf]]'', may do Y”.
+For if, by the lights of the law, a [[principal]] has no right to do a thing, it follows as a matter of ineffable Latin logic that neither may her ox, ass, [[servant]], [[agent]], [[attorney]], [[nominee]], [[delegate]] or other mortal representative do that thing [[on behalf of|on her behalf]]: ''[[nemo dat quod non habet]]'': one cannot give someone else a power one does not have oneself.
-For if, by the lights of the law, a [[principal]] has no right to do a thing, it follows as a matter of ineffable Latin logic that neither may her ox, ass, servant, agent, attorney, nominee, delegate or other mortal representative do that thing, unless such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing. If so the representative will not be acting under the contract at hand, nor really on the principal's behalf, so this purported contractual structure will fall upon stony ground.
+Now if such a representative independently happens to be entitled to do that thing, it is a different story — but even here, this ghastly confection won’t save you: such a representative would not thereby be acting under her own power, not courtesy of yours, and would not be acting [[on behalf of|on your behalf]] at all. Seeing as she wouldn’t ''be'' your representative in the first place, this purported stricture will fall upon stony contractual ground.
-So, be bold, young attorney: banish it from your lexical armoury.
+So, be bold, young [[Legal eagle|eagle of the law]]: wherever you see this construction, strike it from the record.
+{{sa}}
-{{plainenglish}}
+*[[Delegation]]
+*[[Nemo dat quod non habet]]