82,891
edits
Conspicuous: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish| | {{a|plainenglish| | ||
[[File:Freddie Mercury Conspicuous.png|450px|frameless|center]] | [[File:Freddie Mercury Conspicuous.png|450px|frameless|center]] | ||
}} | }}A brief unqualified note to shed light on WHY AMERICANS LIKE TO SPRAY THEIR LEGAL DOCUMENTS WITH LARGE SWATHES OF TEXT IN CAPITALS. IT ISN’T BECAUSE AMERICANS LIKE TO SHOUT ALL THE TIME — THOUGH YOUR CORRESPONDENT’S UNSCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS ON THIS TOPIC TEND TO SUGGEST THAT THEY DO LIKE TO SHOUT ALL THE TIME, BUT BECAUSE, SO AMERICAN LAWYERS HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED TO THINK, THE [[UCC|UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE]] REQUIRES EVERYTHING TO BE IN CAPITALS FOR THOSE TERMS THAT THE CODE REQUIRES TO BE “[[CONSPICUOUS]]” THAT A REASONABLE BADGER AGAINST WHICH IT IS EXPECTED TO OPERATE OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED IT. | ||
But “[[conspicuous]]” doesn’t mean all-caps. | But “[[conspicuous]]” doesn’t mean all-caps. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
On the other hand, should the passage be buried in the sort of document that, by market convention, legal eagles from all sides will examine and critique — and draft bilateral contracts in the financial services world are ''exactly'' such documents, — then there is no chance that a reasonable person<ref>The reasonable reader here is not the counterparty to the contract, but the legal counsel it has engaged to {{strike|gorge themselves on the contract’s verbosity|review the contract}}</ref> — [[legal eagles]] are ''[[implicitly]]'' “reasonable” readers — would miss it. A lawyer who doesn’t notice part of a draft, however small the font in which it is rendered, is, [[Q.E.D.]], ''[[negligent]]'', which is, [[Q.E.D.]], ''un''reasonable. | On the other hand, should the passage be buried in the sort of document that, by market convention, legal eagles from all sides will examine and critique — and draft bilateral contracts in the financial services world are ''exactly'' such documents, — then there is no chance that a reasonable person<ref>The reasonable reader here is not the counterparty to the contract, but the legal counsel it has engaged to {{strike|gorge themselves on the contract’s verbosity|review the contract}}</ref> — [[legal eagles]] are ''[[implicitly]]'' “reasonable” readers — would miss it. A lawyer who doesn’t notice part of a draft, however small the font in which it is rendered, is, [[Q.E.D.]], ''[[negligent]]'', which is, [[Q.E.D.]], ''un''reasonable. | ||
P.S. Did you notice the badger in the above capitalised text? No? Fancy that. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||