83,229
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
To what end the forensic remark “All references to the singular [[shall]] include the [[plural]], and vice versa”? | To what end the forensic remark “All references to the singular [[shall]] include the [[plural]], and vice versa”? | ||
To your correspondent, | To your correspondent, none. It is an whoreson zed; an unnecessary letter. This is throat-clearing text which, once in, benefits from the loving embrace of the [[anal paradox]], but serves no purpose beyond the [[Mediocre lawyer|mediocre attorney’s]] noble pursuit of prolixity. No lawyer will ever object to it, but — and ''because'' — it plays no role in unravelling the practical meaning of the legal {{t|contract}}, bar the obvious ones, where a singular does ''not'' include the plural — such as where a fellowis purchasing a single banger from a nasty café, and this language would be a nonsense. | ||
Can you imagine standing up in court and learnedly submitting that a [[plural]] did not include the [[singular]]? Good news: just such an exchange features in the pages of the {{jclr}}! Let us turn to our go-to thought experiment: a testy exchange between {{jerrold}} and {{cocklecarrot}}, knee-deep, as they usually are, in bitter [[litigation]]. | Can you imagine standing up in court and learnedly submitting that a [[plural]] did not include the [[singular]]? Good news: just such an exchange features in the pages of the {{jclr}}! Let us turn to our go-to thought experiment: a testy exchange between {{jerrold}} and {{cocklecarrot}}, knee-deep, as they usually are, in bitter [[litigation]]. |