Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions

*[[May]] — Avoid redundancy. The parties may, but are not obliged to. “Nothing in the foregoing will prevent parties from —”. Don’t confer entitlements that the parties had in any case. Don’t say a thing more than is necessary. Don’t over-communicate. ''Less is more''.

*[[By]] — [[passive]] tense. Write in the active, with energy, and in a way that clearly assigns and accepts responsibility

*[[Of]] — though seemingly a harmless preposition to place one thing in relation to another, “[[of]]” is often also a dead giveaway for [[passive]] constructions — “[[In the event that|in the event ''of'']] harm to the interests ''of'' the client by the broker” rather than “if the broker harms the client’s interests” — and [[Nominalisation|nominalisations]] — “I shall initiate the termination ''of'' the scheme”, rather than “I will terminate the scheme”.

*[[Shall]] — fusty old language. Herewith, hereof,

*[[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).

*[[verb]] — complicated sentence constructions are aided and abetted by boring, colourless verbs: (because such colourless verbs (give, do, be, make, have,  and the worst of all, [[effect]]) require colouring, usually an accompanying [[noun]] that could itself have been a verb, or an [[adverb]], whose definition is “a word you use only where you can’t think of a better [[verb]]”

*[[Including]] — parentheticals that by definition do not add anything. [[Without limitation]]

*[[Leverage]] — jargon that is designed to make the writer look wise, and not the reader enlightened.

*[[Judge]] — For whom are you writing? Not posterity, not a judge, not to cover your backside,

*[[Deemed]] — avoid legal tics. Things that, yes, you might be able to justify on tendentious logical or ontological grounds, but which ''don’t make a damn of difference in the real world''. So it might be true that the redemption amount is “[[an amount equal to]] the final price” — yes, it is true the redemption amount isn’t, from a brutalised ontological perspective, the final price; in a conceptual scheme they are different things, but they're identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of pendatic skin, by saying the “redemption amount ''is'' the final price”. Likewise “this shall be [[deemed]] to be that” what, practically is the difference between “being deemed to be something”, or (worse) “being deemed to be an amount equal to something” and just “''being'' something”? Exception to the rule: “[[equivalent]]”. Here there is a real-world difference — at least in that purblind topsy-turvy world occupied by accountants. It all relates to the difference between a title transfer and a pledge. But the principle remains: ''unless there is a legal, accounting or tax distinction that one might draw between the tedious and the plain articulations, use the plain one.''

* *[[Purpose]]