Re: Legal English? (take II)

Subject: Re: Legal English? (take II)
From: eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com
To: Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:27:06 -0500

Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca> wrote on 02/11/2004 03:21:35 PM:
> lawyers are generally more
> interested in avoiding misunderstandings than in profitingfrom them.

But one of the skills in writing up contracts is to write in language that
agrees with RFP and requirements but is subtly different and can be
interpreted more leniently by the supplier.

> But the results suggest that the legal profession as a whole could
> benefit from a large number of skilled editors.

But what would they allow you to edit. I doesn't matter what an editor
says a particular text means or that their rewrite is identical or clearer
than the passage being replaced. The opinion that matters is that of a
judge or jury. If you edit the text, it no longer has a legal definition
and is open to being rechallenged in court.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer


Previous by Author: Re: Legal English (was RE: Using M-dash and N-dash?)
Next by Author: Re: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)
Previous by Thread: RE: Legal English (was RE: Using M-dash and N-dash?)
Next by Thread: Legal English? (take III)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads