To the fullest extent permissible by law: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

To the fullest extent permissible by law (view source)

Revision as of 21:46, 15 November 2022

670 bytes added , 15 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{quote|
-''The Issuer [[to the maximum extent permissible by law]], accepts no liability for the contents of this prospectus...''}}
+''The Issuer [[to the fullest 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?
-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. Actually, let’s face facts: God probably doesn’t know ''either''.
-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.”
+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.
-Whereas the bold statement:  “''The Issuer accepts no liability for this prospectus''” leaves a reader in no doubt where she stands:
+The lilly-liveredness of the statement makes us 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 consider the simpler, bolder statement: “''The Issuer accepts '''no''' liability for this prospectus. None at all. FULL STOP love and kisses xox''”
+This leaves those disposed to vexatious litigation in no doubt where they stand.
 “Okay, okay, I ''get'' it. You aren’t responsible. ''Jesus''. Calm ''down'' already.”
-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?
+Now, should it transpire that the fullest extent of the law does ''not'' allow the Issuer off a hook to which the law’s gentler passages might have turned a blind eye — we quite like the idea there are lazy stretches further down the legal river that aren’t as wild as its farthest reaches, by the way —  then investors will get the benefit of that full extent, however fulsome or terse the Issuer’s disclaimer.
-{{egg}}
+So what does the Issuer gain by tempering its disclaimer with this “fullest extent” vacillation?
+As do so many of the hypotheticals posed in these pages, we suppose this one too will turn out to be a rhetorical question.
+{{sa}}
+*[[I never said you couldn’t]]
 {{ref}}