82,891
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===== | |||
“[[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''” — through 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''” — through 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. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
Any of these can, in theory, convey [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]] as well can a written or oral communication. | Any of these can, in theory, convey [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]] as well can a written or oral communication. | ||
=== | =====[[Emoji]]s===== | ||
The King’s Bench of Saskatchewan — not an English court to be sure, but of persuasive value, especially when speaking this much sense — has recently affirmed the [[JC]]’s conviction about | The King’s Bench of Saskatchewan — not an English court to be sure, but of persuasive value, especially when speaking this much sense — has recently affirmed the [[JC]]’s conviction about [[emoji]]s 😬. | ||
In an argument about whether a merchant was bound to supply a consignment of flax on the back of an exchange of SMS messages. | |||
The plaintiff drew up a contract to purchase SWT 86 metric tonnes of flax from the defendant, wet-signed it, took a photo of the contract and texted the photo to the defendant with the text message: “Please confirm flax contract”. | The plaintiff drew up a contract to purchase SWT 86 metric tonnes of flax from the defendant, wet-signed it, took a photo of the contract and texted the photo to the defendant with the text message: “Please confirm flax contract”. | ||