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 6: | Line 6: | ||
The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general positive commitment: “The chargor will take all practicable steps to assist the chargee in registering the charge”, by using specific restrictions to rein it in: “[[for the avoidance of doubt]] in doing so the chargor [[shall]] not be [[obligated]] to breach, transgress or contravene, [[as the case may be]], any statue, law or regulation).” | The trick comes with trying to peg back a vague, general positive commitment: “The chargor will take all practicable steps to assist the chargee in registering the charge”, by using specific restrictions to rein it in: “[[for the avoidance of doubt]] in doing so the chargor [[shall]] not be [[obligated]] to breach, transgress or contravene, [[as the case may be]], any statue, law or regulation).” | ||
Of course, the prose stylists amongst you, my little contrarians | Of course, the [[prose stylist|prose stylists]] amongst you — all right, my little contrarians, admit it: ''there are none'' — might prefer to draft ''sans doubte'' in the first place. | ||
===Nasty=== | |||
Which brings us to ''Nasty''. {{video nasty}} | Which brings us to ''Nasty''. {{video nasty}} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
{{court scene|II|iv|stares winsomely at a an odd knot in the panel at the rear of the court, mutely resenting the human race’s inability to invent a good biro|rises suddenly, causing a rent in his trousers that sounds like a passing Ferrari. The Lord Justice blanches. Sir Jerrold clears his throat}} | {{court scene|II|iv|stares winsomely at a an odd knot in the panel at the rear of the court, mutely resenting the human race’s inability to invent a good biro|rises suddenly, causing a rent in his trousers that sounds like a passing Ferrari. The Lord Justice blanches. Sir Jerrold clears his throat}} | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an ''[[email]]''! <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': I see. And how did the defendant communicate with you, in that “email”? <br> | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': Well, she — ahh — she sent me an ''email'', M’Lud. <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': So you say. And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?<br> | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': No. <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': Was it in the form of a series of depictions of semaphore flags which, when taken together, conveyed the message without using words? <br> | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': It was not, m’lud. <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': Well, then how ''was'' it articulated, {{jbm}}? | ||
:''Inaudible mumbling.'' <br> | :''Inaudible mumbling.'' <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': Speak up, I can’t hear you. <br> | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': It was in ''words'', your honour. <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': “Writing” then, wouldn’t you say? | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': No, your honour. “''Words''”. | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': “Words?” <br> | :'''{{cmr}}''': “Words?” <br> | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': Yes. “Words.” <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': 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> | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': | :'''{{jbm}}''': Permission to run for the hills, your honour. <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': | :'''{{cmr}}''': Granted, {{jbm}}. Flee! <br> | ||
==={{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}=== | ==={{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}=== | ||
All this ribaldry is all well and good but we should mention curious case of ''[[Greenclose]]'', which is held that section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{isdama}}, which provides several methods by which a party “[[may]]” communicate under that {{isdama}} should be interpreted to exclude any other means of communication — in other words as a “must”. More on that in the [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|case note]] and in our article on section {{isdaprov|12 }} of the {{isdama}} | All this ribaldry is all well and good but we should mention curious case of ''[[Greenclose]]'', which is held that section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{isdama}}, which provides several methods by which a party “[[may]]” communicate under that {{isdama}} should be interpreted to exclude any other means of communication — in other words as a “must”. More on that in the [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|case note]] and in our article on section {{isdaprov|12 }} of the {{isdama}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||