82,891
edits
To the fullest extent permissible by law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
To the fullest extent permissible by law (view source)
Revision as of 14:56, 15 November 2022
, 15 November 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{quote| | {{quote| | ||
'' | ''The Issuer [[to the maximum extent permissible by law]], accepts no liability for the contents of this prospectus...''}} | ||
{{sex|She}} might pause briefly, on that first fumbling encounter, and wonder what legal mischief this [[incantation]] is [[calculated]] to ward off. Does the law assume that any contractual provision is [[deemed]], unless you say to the contrary, to be half-hearted in its intent — a choked nine-iron back onto the fairway from behind a tree, and not a full-throated drive at the green? | {{sex|She}} might pause briefly, on that first fumbling encounter, and wonder what legal mischief this [[incantation]] is [[calculated]] to ward off. Does the law assume that any contractual provision is [[deemed]], unless you say to the contrary, to be half-hearted in its intent — a choked nine-iron back onto the fairway from behind a tree, and not a full-throated drive at the green? | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
God only knows, is this commentator’s remark. God probably doesn’t know either. But a bit of research suggests that this gem found its way into the forensic world some time in the late 1970s. And as you’ll see to the right<ref>Original file [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maximum+extent+permissible+by+law&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc1 here]</ref>, it has flourished since its introduction. | God only knows, is this commentator’s remark. God probably doesn’t know either. But a bit of research suggests that this gem found its way into the forensic world some time in the late 1970s. And as you’ll see to the right<ref>Original file [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maximum+extent+permissible+by+law&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cmaximum%20extent%20permissible%20by%20law%3B%2Cc1 here]</ref>, it has flourished since its introduction. | ||
The lilly-liveredness of this statement makes you shudder. | The lilly-liveredness of this statement makes you shudder. We know for certain that no-one saw fit to make this remark ''before'' the 1970s. What is it about the modern world that makes a [[legal eagle]] worry so? Does it not, subliminally, sent a contrary message: “I am ''saying'' I accept no responsibility, but I tacitly acknowledge that at some level I probably do.” | ||
Whereas the bold statement: “The Issuer accepts no liability for this prospectus” leaves a reader in no doubt where she stands. Okay, okay, I get it. You aren’t responsible. | |||
Now should it transpire that the full extent of the law did not allow the Issuer off the hook, well — happy days — but the Issuer gains nothing by adding this in the interim. And ''not'' saying it hardly makes the Issuer’s position worse, does it? | |||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||