83,153
edits
Template:In writing capsule: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
“[[In writing]]” means ''recorded for posterity, in words ingestable by means of the eyes, as opposed to the ears''. This is not the OED definition, I grant you — I made it up just now — but it zeroes in on the immutable fact that, whether it is on parchment, paper, cathode ray tube, LED screen or electronic reader, you take in [[in writing|writing]] by ''looking at it''. Not [[orally]] — from the mouth — or for that matter, ''aurally'' — to the ears nor, in the [[JC]]’s favourite example, via semaphore, by a chap waving flags from a distant hill, but in visible sentences, made up of visual words. | “[[In writing]]” means ''recorded for posterity, in words ingestable by means of the eyes, as opposed to the ears''. This is not the OED definition, I grant you — I made it up just now — but it zeroes in on the immutable fact that, whether it is on parchment, paper, cathode ray tube, LED screen or electronic reader, you take in [[in writing|writing]] by ''looking at it''. Not [[orally]] — from the mouth — or for that matter, ''aurally'' — to the ears nor, in the [[JC]]’s favourite example, via semaphore, by a chap waving flags from a distant hill, but in visible sentences, made up of visual words. | ||
Could | Could “writing” include GIFs? [[Emoji]]s? We ''suppose'' so — but do you “write” them, as such? — but to the wider question “can [[emoji]]s be contractually significant?” the answer is undoubtedly ''yes''. | ||
Acceptance, to be legally binding, ''need not be “in writing”''. Nor “orally”. Acceptance just needs to be ''clear''. ''Whether'' one has accepted is a matter for the laws of ''[[evidence]]''. There is little doubt that one who has [[signed, sealed and delivered]] a parchment deed by quill in counterpart has accepted its contents — it is about as good evidence as you could ask for, short of the fellow admitting it in cross-examination — but a merchant need not, and often does not, reach this gold standard when concluding commercial arrangements about town. We have all stumbled morosely into the newsagent, pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of ''The Racing Post'', not having exchanged a word with the proprietor — barely making even eye contact. Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction? | Acceptance, to be legally binding, ''need not be “in writing”''. Nor “orally”. Acceptance just needs to be ''clear''. ''Whether'' one has accepted is a matter for the laws of ''[[evidence]]''. There is little doubt that one who has [[signed, sealed and delivered]] a parchment deed by quill in counterpart has accepted its contents — it is about as good evidence as you could ask for, short of the fellow admitting it in cross-examination — but a merchant need not, and often does not, reach this gold standard when concluding commercial arrangements about town. We have all stumbled morosely into the newsagent, pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of ''The Racing Post'', not having exchanged a word with the proprietor — barely making even eye contact. Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction? | ||