82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pe}}“[[With respect to]]” (aka “[[in respect of]]”) is a {{tag| | {{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, 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. | 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. | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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?). | 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?). | ||
{{loose prepositional phrases}} | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Governing law]] | *[[Governing law]] |