82,469
edits
I never said you couldn’t: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A kind of [[profound ontological uncertainty]] which leads to proliferating [[incluso]]s and [[for the avoidance of doubt]]s, is the [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]]’s reluctance to grasp a simple proposition: ''You don’t have | A kind of [[profound ontological uncertainty]] which leads to proliferating [[incluso]]s and [[for the avoidance of doubt]]s, is the [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]]’s reluctance to grasp a simple proposition: ''You don’t have say what you have '''not''' agreed to do in a [[contract]]''. You don’t have to do ''anything'' you haven’t agreed to do. | ||
Your starting point, therefore, should be that you should not say what you are not going to do. The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general commitment, by using specific restrictions ([[for the avoidance of doubt]]. Of course, the literary-minded might prefer to draft clearly and precisely in the first place. | Your starting point, therefore, should be that you should not say what you are not going to do. The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general commitment, by using specific restrictions ([[for the avoidance of doubt]]. Of course, the literary-minded might prefer to draft clearly and precisely in the first place. | ||
Which brings us to ''Nasty''. | Which brings us to ''Nasty''. {{video nasty}} | ||
{{video nasty}} | |||
This is the lawyer's take on that old philosophical adage: [[the onus of proof is on the person making an existential claim]]. | This is the lawyer's take on that old philosophical adage: [[the onus of proof is on the person making an existential claim]]. | ||
A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike [[incluso]]s from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without willing the ground open up and swallow you. Thus: | A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike [[incluso]]s from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without willing the ground open up and swallow you. Thus: | ||
:“Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an ''[[email]]''!” <br> | :''Mr. Amwell for the prosecution'': “Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an ''[[email]]''!” <br> | ||
:“I see. And how did the defendant communicate in that email?” <br> | :''Herbert J'': “I see. And how did the defendant communicate in that email?” <br> | ||
:“Well, | :''A'': “Well, she sent me an email.” <br> | ||
:“So you say. And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?” <br> | :''J'': “So you say. And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?” <br> | ||
:“No.” <br> | :''A'': “No.” <br> | ||
:“Was it in the form of a series of depictions of semaphore flags which, when taken together, | :''J'': “Was it in the form of a series of depictions of semaphore flags which, when taken together, conveyed the message without using words?” <br> | ||
:“No, m’lud.” <br> | :''A'': “No, m’lud.” <br> | ||
:“Well, then | :''J'': “Well, then how was it articulated, Mr. [[Amwell J|Amwell]]? | ||
:''Inaudible mumbling.'' <br> | :''Inaudible mumbling.'' <br> | ||
:“Speak up, I can’t hear you.” <br> | :''J'': “Speak up, I can’t hear you.” <br> | ||
:“It was in ''words'', your honour.” <br> | :''A'': “It was in ''words'', your honour.” <br> | ||
:“Writing then, wouldn’t you say?” | :''J'': “Writing then, wouldn’t you say?” | ||
:“No, your honour. ''Words''.” | :''A'': “No, your honour. ''Words''.” | ||
:“Words?” <br> | :''J'': “Words?” <br> | ||
:“Yes. Words.” <br> | :''A'': “Yes. Words.” <br> | ||
:“And are you suggesting that “words”, spelling out a message, albeit contained in a purely [[Electronic messaging system|electronic medium]], somehow do not amount to “writing”?” <br> | :''J'': “And are you suggesting that “words”, spelling out a message, albeit contained in a purely [[Electronic messaging system|electronic medium]], somehow do not amount to “writing”?” <br> | ||
:“Permission to run for the hills, your honour.” <br> | :''A'': “Permission to run for the hills, your honour.” <br> | ||
:“Granted, Mr. [[Amwell J|Amwell]]. Flee!” <br> | :''J'': “Granted, Mr. [[Amwell J|Amwell]]. Flee!” <br> | ||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||