83,229
edits
Headings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
''Through the effluxions of the negotiation process, a clause which started out addressing one topic might wind up addressing something quite different. Even the reverse. What if an “[[assignment]]” clause turns into a “'''no''' assignment” clause, and someone forgets to amend the title?'' | ''Through the effluxions of the negotiation process, a clause which started out addressing one topic might wind up addressing something quite different. Even the reverse. What if an “[[assignment]]” clause turns into a “'''no''' assignment” clause, and someone forgets to amend the title?'' | ||
Aside from observing that “assignment” would be a serviceable title for a clause about assignment ''whatever'' its attitude to the topic — I know, bad example — this strikes as a charter for the negligent; an articulation of the [[ | Aside from observing that “assignment” would be a serviceable title for a clause about assignment ''whatever'' its attitude to the topic — I know, bad example — this strikes as a charter for the negligent; an articulation of the [[Buttocractic oath]] for our learned friends. | ||
Isn’t getting the title right — thereby yielding a clear, understandable tract — a basic part of competent drafting? If not, why are only bished headings forgiveable? Should we extend alms, too, to those malcompetent types who botch clauses as well? | Isn’t getting the title right — thereby yielding a clear, understandable tract — a basic part of competent drafting? If not, why are only bished headings forgiveable? Should we extend alms, too, to those malcompetent types who botch clauses as well? | ||