Sharpened stick: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 47: Line 47:


Thus if you have the choice between:  
Thus if you have the choice between:  
{{quote|You hereby indemnify, hold harmless and keep indemnified, and held harmless, jointly and severally us, our affiliates and our and their respective employees, agents, advisers and associates from and against all claims, actions, proceedings, requests, demands, criticisms, innuendoes, slurs injuries, flesh-wounds, incapacities, inconveniences, disappointments, penalties, free-kicks ([[Direct|direct]] or [[indirect loss|indirect]]) liabilities, losses, damages (direct or indirect), costs [[and/or]] expenses arising or alleged to arise from, under, out of, in connection with or in relation to the Agreement, our services under it or any other matter or activity of [[any type, kind or variety]] referred to contemplated by or derivable by inference from the Agreement, any services act or thing done in connection with it or which arise out of any breach, alleged breach [[constructive]] breach of any of your, or your affiliates, agents, servants or advisers obligations, duties or any warranties arising in contract, tort, equity or other tenets of natural, retributive, distributive or restorative justice now in existence or hereafter emerging whether under the terms of or as a result of this Agreement or otherwise, which any such person or its friends, romans and countrymen may suffer or incur in any jurisdiction, territory, location whether or not now existing or subsequently discovered.}}
{{quote|The Client hereby indemnify, hold harmless and keep indemnified, and held harmless, jointly and severally the Service Provider, its affiliates and its and their respective employees, agents, advisers and associates from and against all claims, actions, proceedings, requests, demands, criticisms, innuendoes, slurs injuries, flesh-wounds, incapacities, inconveniences, disappointments, penalties, free-kicks ([[Direct loss|direct]] or [[indirect loss|indirect]]) liabilities, losses, damages (direct or indirect), costs [[and/or]] expenses arising or alleged to arise from, under, out of, in connection with or in relation to the Agreement, our services under it or any other matter or activity of [[any type, kind or variety]] referred to contemplated by or derivable by inference from the Agreement, any services act or thing done in connection with it or which arise out of any breach, alleged breach [[constructive]] breach of any of your, or your affiliates, agents, servants or advisers obligations, duties or any warranties arising in contract, tort, equity or other tenets of natural, retributive, distributive or restorative justice now in existence or hereafter emerging whether under the terms of or as a result of this Agreement or otherwise, which any such person or its friends, romans and countrymen may suffer or incur in any jurisdiction, territory, location whether or not now existing or subsequently discovered.}}


or
or
Line 53: Line 53:
{{quote|You indemnify and hold us harmless against any claims we suffer and must reimburse us promptly on demand for any losses we incur as a result of our engagement and our reasonable performance of our services under it.}}
{{quote|You indemnify and hold us harmless against any claims we suffer and must reimburse us promptly on demand for any losses we incur as a result of our engagement and our reasonable performance of our services under it.}}


which will you choose?
Which will you choose?


===Personalise===
===Personalise===
It’s so obvious it hardly need be said, but writing in the first and second person is so much more personal than writing in the disembodied third person. the main objection is that “we” is ambiguous (it could refer to the party writing hte contract, or both parties to the contract) but this strikes us as more an admission of an underdeveloped facility with the English language than a material jurisprudential objection. For we manage in ordinary conversation without being perpetually confused — if it were otherwise “we” would not be the popular pronoun that it is. The secret is ''context''. A certain type of lawyers fear context: to rely on a correspondent’s grasp of context is to leave open a door to wilful or wanton misconstrual that most lawyers would pray remained soundly shut. This is to place less faith in the common sense of customers, litigants and courts, and more in the value of baroque, leaden drafting, than we feel naturally warranted.
{{ref}}

Navigation menu