I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document
he was working on for me should use the trope "including but not
limited to". Is there some version of the English language or
some court decision or something that declared that "including" in
a contract means "consisting of"? I"m puzzled and a bit
annoyed....
I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document he was working on for me should use the trope "including but not limited to". Is there some version of the English language or some court decision or something that declared that "including" in a contract means "consisting
of"? I"m puzzled and a bit annoyed....
/Bernie\
I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document he was >working on for me should use the trope "including but not limited to". Is >there some version of the English language or some court decision or >something that declared that "including" in a contract means "consisting
of"? I"m puzzled and a bit annoyed....
/Bernie\
"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
} Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:
}
} > I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a
document } > he was working on for me should use the trope
"including but not } > limited to". Is there some version of the
English language or } > some court decision or something that
declared that "including" in } > a contract means "consisting of"?
I"m puzzled and a bit } > annoyed....
}
} That phrase is generally followed by a specific thing or list of
} things. In that context it is perfectly reasonable. "You may
pet any } furry animal, including but not limited to cats and
dogs." I don't see } the problem.
It just seems to be odd legalese verbosity. How is what you
wrote more clear [or precise] than "you may pet any furry animal,
including cats and dogs"?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 344 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 63:19:26 |
Calls: | 7,535 |
Files: | 12,717 |
Messages: | 5,643,126 |