83,307
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A rule that should strike fear into two sorts of people: those who are not [[good egg]]s and do not heed the {{tag|Latin}} maxim ''[[non mentula esse]]'', and those whose command of the English language is flakey enough that they can’t write down, simply and clearly, what they mean. | A rule that should strike fear into two sorts of people: those who are not [[good egg]]s and do not heed the {{tag|Latin}} maxim ''[[non mentula esse]]'', and those whose command of the English language is flakey enough that they can’t write down, simply and clearly, what they mean. | ||
Of course, the more an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] mistrusts {{sex|her}} own use of the language, the more convoluted {{sex|she}} tends to make it (there’s nothing quite like a good {{tag|flannel}}ing to gloss over one’s literary shortcomings), and the more likely the [[contra proferentem]] rule is apt to | Of course, the more an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] mistrusts {{sex|her}} own use of the language, the more convoluted {{sex|she}} tends to make it (there’s nothing quite like a good {{tag|flannel}}ing to gloss over one’s literary shortcomings), and the more likely the [[contra proferentem]] rule is apt to slap her in the face. | ||
The presumption that a legal provision | The presumption that one should construe a legal provision “[[contra proferentem]]” - against the person who drafted it - is only really likely to get in your hair if there is scope for misconstruing it. This is only likely if you’ve made it that way through ineptitude or deceit. | ||
Use your commas wisely, therefore. And be a [[good egg]]. | Use your commas wisely, therefore. And be a [[good egg]]. |