With respect to: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

With respect to (view source)

Revision as of 16:47, 18 June 2019

687 bytes removed , 18 June 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,883

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{pe}}“[[With respect to]]” (aka “[[in respect of]]”) A prepositional phrase, like “[[in relation to]]” or “[[in connection with]]” that puts two things loosely in connection with each other, without implying a causal link between them. It’s — literally — a ''meta''preposition. Very meta.
+{{pe}}“[[With respect to]]” (aka “[[in respect of]]”) is a {{tag|compound preposition}}, like “[[in relation to]]” or “[[in connection with]]” that puts two things loosely in connection with each other, without implying a causal link between them. It’s — literally — a ''meta''preposition. Very meta.
-A good one to use if your [[Mediocre lawyer|natural fear of your own language]] cautions you against stronger prepositions, that ''do'' imply a causal link, like “in”, “[[under]]”, “[[arising out of]]” or “from”, lest you should have missed something.
+A good one to use if your [[Mediocre lawyer|natural fear of your own language]] cautions you against stronger, less mealy-mouthed [[preposition|prepositions]], that ''do'' imply a causal link between subject and object, like “in”, “[[under]]”, “[[arising out of]]” or “from”. If you use one of these, there is always the chance — [[Chicken-licken|the sky might fall in on your head]], of course — that you might have missed something.
 The classic formulation is found in the standard [[Rome II]]-compliant [[governing law]] clause: “[[In the event of]] a dispute [[arising out of]] ''or [[in relation to]]'' this {{tag|contract}}, [[including]] any question regarding its existence, validity or termination ...”
-This captures not just disputes in contract ''[[under]]'' this agreement, but disputes that might arise as to the formation of this agreement (pre-contractual [[Misrepresentation|misrepresentations]], for example — whcih as a matter of logic predate the contract, and therefore cannot arise under it), and disputes about actions, while performed under a contract, might all the same sound in tort (should there be found to be concurrent liability — a remote contingency, to be sure, but our sacred duty is to obsess about remote contingencies, remember?).
+This captures not just disputes in contract ''[[under]]'' this agreement, but disputes that might arise as to the formation of this agreement (pre-contractual [[Misrepresentation|misrepresentations]], for example — whcih as a matter of logic predate the {{tag|contract}}, and therefore cannot arise “[[under]]” it), and disputes about actions, while performed under a contract, might all the same sound in tort (should there be found to be concurrent liability — a remote contingency, to be sure, but our sacred duty is to obsess about remote contingencies, remember?).
-Careful about being too trigger-happy about loose prepositional phrases like this. There  is a howler in the definition of {{gmslaprov|income}} in the {{gmsla}}.
+{{loose prepositional phrases}}
-:''{{GMSLA 2010 Income}}''
-Here, the drafting should say " [[interest]], [[dividend]]s or other distributions ''of any kind whatsoever''<ref>Actually, in the [[JC]]'s view this is also unintentially wide and really ought to be “...or other ''similar'' distributions”. See {{gmslaprov|Income}} for more [[tedious]] discussion on this fascinating topic.</ref> paid '''[[under]]''' the {{gmslaprov|Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}.
-Distributions paid with respect to the {{gmslaprov|Securities}} could include amounts paid by unreleted third parties that reference the {{gmslaprov|Securities}}: you know, like [[derivative]] payments. Payments that could be levered, or modified, but none theless paid by reference to the shares themselves. So that would be bad.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Governing law]]