Timeline for Indian legal documents
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2012 at 13:59 | comment | added | JAM | Appreciate the perspective of someone who's actually studied this stuff. +1 | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 9:07 | comment | added | user21497 | @Pitarou: Your argument is about What should be (I agree with what should be) but not about What is (I agree that the meaning of some boilerplate is "firmly established"). | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 9:03 | comment | added | user21497 | @Pitarou: You are free to downvote for whatever reason. I'd argue that SF is wrong & that he's never studied contract law or even read legal disputes over the meaning of legal language. I'll use only one famous case in American constitutional law, without stating my position on it: 2nd Amendment. Read the arguments about the meaning of the language & read the theories that underlie the interpretations. The Amendment is not crystal clear. Ideally, the meaning of boilerplate is "firmly established". In reality, contracts are often intentionally filled with pools of legalese quicksand. | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 8:52 | comment | added | Pitarou | I'm tempted to downvoted this answer because, as SF has so lucidly explained, the main reason for using legalese is not to generate documents "whose meanings must be argued over". The whole point is that the meaning has already been argued over, and firmly established. The lawyer is protecting his client from pointless, expensive legal disputes. Still, there certainly are certainly contexts where layman's confusion is exploited. | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 8:32 | history | answered | user21497 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |