82,900
edits
Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===[[May]]=== | ===[[May]]=== | ||
Avoid [[redundancy]]. The law of contract governs what parties | Avoid [[redundancy]]. The law of contract governs what parties must and must not do. Unless qualifying these absolutes, it has no interest in what they may, do not have to do. So don’t confer entitlements that the parties had in any case. Strike constructions like this: | ||
{{quote|“Nothing in | {{quote|“Nothing in this contract will prevent parties from —”. }} | ||
“But what,” I hear you cry, “if something in the contract ''would'', otherwise, prevent the parties from —?” | |||
The answer here is to change that other something in the contract so it ''doesn’t''. Otherwise you have a logical contradiction in your document. You are a professional writer. You have one job: forensic clarity. Do it properly. | |||
Don’t say more than you need to. Don’t over-communicate. ''Less is more''. | Don’t say more than you need to. Don’t over-communicate. ''Less is more''. | ||
===[[By]]=== | ===[[By]]=== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 20: | ||
:rather than: | :rather than: | ||
{{quote|“if the broker harms the client’s interests...”}} | {{quote|“if the broker harms the client’s interests...”}} | ||
Likewise, it signposts [[Nominalisation|nominalisations]]: | |||
{{quote|“I shall initiate the termination ''[[of]]'' the scheme”}} | {{quote|“I shall initiate the termination ''[[of]]'' the scheme”}} | ||
:rather than: | :rather than: | ||
| Line 23: | Line 27: | ||
Like “[[of]]”, we often hook up the commonest verb to longer [[infinitive|infinitives]] and [[noun]]s, making ugly [[passive]]s and [[nominalisation]]s. It is also a gateway drug to cluttered syntax. We [[legal eagle]]s are so acclimatised to writing this way we barely notice when we do it: I just caught myself writing: | Like “[[of]]”, we often hook up the commonest verb to longer [[infinitive|infinitives]] and [[noun]]s, making ugly [[passive]]s and [[nominalisation]]s. It is also a gateway drug to cluttered syntax. We [[legal eagle]]s are so acclimatised to writing this way we barely notice when we do it: I just caught myself writing: | ||
{{quote|“What I want ''is'' a document that ''is'' clear, plain and ''is'' understandable.”}} | {{quote|“What I want ''is'' a document that ''is'' clear, plain and ''is'' understandable.”}} | ||
Take out the existential verb and you get: | |||
{{quote|“I want a clear, plain, understandable document.”}} | {{quote|“I want a clear, plain, understandable document.”}} | ||
===[[Shall]]=== | ===[[Shall]]=== | ||
Fusty, old, imprecise language. Herewith, hereof, | Fusty, old, imprecise language. Herewith, hereof, heretofore, | ||
===[[And/or]]=== | ===[[And/or]]=== | ||
You are a professional writer: write like one. Be confident. Avoid nervous language in the first place, not doubt later on. [[Unless otherwise agreed]]; write [[For the avoidance of doubt|to ''avoid'' doubt in the first place]] (though in my cantankerous opinion [[doubt]] is in any case underrated). | You are a professional writer: write like one. Be confident. Avoid nervous language in the first place, not doubt later on. [[Unless otherwise agreed]]; write [[For the avoidance of doubt|to ''avoid'' doubt in the first place]] (though in my cantankerous opinion [[doubt]] is in any case underrated). | ||