To the fullest extent permissible by law: Difference between revisions

To the fullest extent permissible by law (view source)

Revision as of 16:59, 15 November 2022

152 bytes added , 15 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 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. 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.”
+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, tacitly, I suppose I realise, at some level, I probably do. You know, that old devil “the law’s fullest extent” might hunt me down and get me.”
-Whereas the bold statement:  “''The Issuer accepts no liability for this prospectus''” leaves a reader in no doubt where she stands:
+Whereas the bold statement:  “''The Issuer accepts no liability for this prospectus, FULL STOP love and kisses xox''” This leaves a even a litigious reader in no doubt where she stands:
 “Okay, okay, I ''get'' it. You aren’t responsible. ''Jesus''. Calm ''down'' already.”
-Now, should it transpire that the fullest extent of the law— and we wuite like the idea there are gentle stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wet ’n’ wild as the far reaches of its fullest extent — did not allow the Issuer off the hook, well — for investors, happy days; they’re in the money — but even so, the Issuer gains nothing by adding text acknowledging this contingency in the interim.
+Now, should it transpire that “the fullest extent of the law”— and we quite like the idea there are gentle stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wet ’n’ wild as the far reaches of its fullest extent — did not allow the Issuer off the hook, well — for investors, happy days; they’re in the money — but even so, the Issuer gains nothing by adding text acknowledging this contingency in the interim.
 And ''not'' saying it hardly makes the Issuer’s position worse, does it?
 {{egg}}
 {{ref}}