82,885
edits
Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions
Good luck in court with that one (view source)
Revision as of 07:55, 5 September 2020
, 5 September 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{A|devil|}} a counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is in defence of simple language and and in resistance of flannel. Legal eagles...") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{A|devil|}} | {{A|devil|}} | ||
A counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is in defence of simple language and and in resistance of flannel. | |||
Legal eagles and nothing if not creative. They're imaginative bounds run to the paranoid comma and every legal negotiator will find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe which might arise if if a counterpart should willfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. | Legal eagles and nothing if not creative. They're imaginative bounds run to the paranoid comma and every legal negotiator will find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe which might arise if if a counterpart should willfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
Our view is that it is always worth defending textual elegance, not just in the name of handsome prose (they surely that is enough) but in defence of longer term simplicity, clarity, and operability. Think global, act local. this is where you, my crusading legal eagle, can make a difference. | Our view is that it is always worth defending textual elegance, not just in the name of handsome prose (they surely that is enough) but in defence of longer term simplicity, clarity, and operability. Think global, act local. this is where you, my crusading legal eagle, can make a difference. | ||
Additionally, acquiring a reputation for anti-pedantry brings its own rewards. Your counterparts will quickly learn that the hollow pleasure that comes from inserting their ''[[foam]]'' into your manuscript is not worth the bother, as you can be certain to to spend tedious half hours arguing for its removal again. Make it known that there will be no easy [[swept-back wing and knee slide]] moments for your counterparts. Those who get to know you will quickly tire of trying. | Additionally, acquiring a reputation for anti-pedantry brings its own rewards. Your counterparts will quickly learn that the hollow pleasure that comes from inserting their ''[[foam]]'' into your manuscript is not worth the bother, as you can be certain to to spend tedious half hours arguing for its removal again. Make it known that there will be no easy [[in your face|swept-back wing and knee slide]] moments for your counterparts. Those who get to know you will quickly tire of trying. | ||
The best argument is the hypothetical session in in the chancery division at which one might litigate this hypothetical point. And here we turn to our old friend {(jerrold} to illustrate. | |||
{{Court scene||||||||||}} | |||