82,891
edits
Template:In writing capsule: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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'' — | “[[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. | ||
Could “writing” include GIFs? [[Emoji]]s? We ''suppose'' so — but do you “write” them, as such? — but to the wider question “can | Sentences. Words. Mystic runes carved upon the very living rock. Anything else? Could “writing” include memes? GIFs? [[Emoji]]s? We ''suppose'' so — but do you “write” them, as such? — but to the wider question “can communications apprehended visually but of a non-verbal nature 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 [[Contract|commercial arrangements]] about town. | 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 [[Contract|commercial arrangements]] about town. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Who has not stumbled morosely into the newsagent of a Sunday morning, wordlessly pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of ''The Racing Post'', not having exchanged as much as a glance with the proprietor? Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction? | Who has not stumbled morosely into the newsagent of a Sunday morning, wordlessly pushed a copper across the counter and left with a copy of ''The Racing Post'', not having exchanged as much as a glance with the proprietor? Do we doubt for an instant that a binding contract was formed during that terse interaction? | ||
There is, in theory, a whole ecosystem of non-verbal communications — winks, nods, wags, shaken heads, facial tics and cocked eyebrows — and nor should we forget, those who stand on distant hills and communicate by smoke signal, Greek heroes who | There is, in theory, a whole ecosystem of non-verbal communications — winks, nods, wags, shaken heads, facial tics and cocked eyebrows — and nor should we forget, those who stand on distant hills and communicate by smoke signal, Greek heroes who miscommunicate their safe return by sail colour<ref>Sail configuration can be tricky especially if you are absent-minded, however, as [[Theseus]]’ father-in-law might have told you, had he been around to do so.</ref> or modern admirals who transmit instructions to the fleet using a flag sequence. | ||
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”. | ||