01-15-2004, 05:45 PM
|
#1707
|
|
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
|
I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
Quote:
Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Me too, although I think it is a phrase that has its purpose.
Here is a writing quirk that I often see (I am not sure if it is something that oly lawyers do because I rarely if ever speak or correspond with non-lawyers):
"Moreover, even if we had an obligation to purchase the widgets (which we do not) . . . ."
"Moreover, even if Party X had breached his fiduciary duty (which he did not) . . . ."
What is the purpose of this? You just told me in the immediately preceding paragraph that you have no obligation to purchase the widgets, or that Party X has not breached his fiduciary duty. Are you really concerned that, by referencing the hypothetical possibility that you do or he did, this will somehow be used as an admission against you, despite your earlier denial? "Your honor, although the representative of Y Company claims that the company has no obligation to purchase the widgets, he has FLAT OUT ADMITTED that this obligation could hypthetically exist!"
|
Assuming arguendo that either of the foregoing have any place in legal discourse, I find them to be wordy and excessive.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
|
|
|
