82,883
edits
Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions
Good luck in court with that one (view source)
Revision as of 10:22, 7 October 2021
, 7 October 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
When presented with such pettifoggery, resist it thus: “are you saying that if you presented your interpretation to a court it would, seriously, entertain it?” | When presented with such pettifoggery, resist it thus: “are you saying that if you presented your interpretation to a court it would, seriously, entertain it?” | ||
This is rather like reacting, as schoolboys of the [[JC]]’s generation did, when presented with some transparently preposterous playground boast in the playground, by theatrically stroking one’s chin and cackling, “Oh, right, ''[[Jimmy Hill]]'' you did.” | |||
Friends, we do not do the ''Jimmy Hill chin-stroke'' nearly enough any more. | |||
The idea is to move the debate from tedious hypotheticals about conceptual risks and linguistic imperfections, to assessing the practical risk of significant confusion that results in loss. A lawyer’s mandate is made of wood, metal, leather and earth. It is not of the [[Platonic ideal|spheres]]. We are not theorists of perfect exactitude, but ''enablers of commercse''. [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough]]. | The idea is to move the debate from tedious hypotheticals about conceptual risks and linguistic imperfections, to assessing the practical risk of significant confusion that results in loss. A lawyer’s mandate is made of wood, metal, leather and earth. It is not of the [[Platonic ideal|spheres]]. We are not theorists of perfect exactitude, but ''enablers of commercse''. [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough]]. | ||