3 ms·
Legalese tend to define things even if that seems absurdly excessive and obvious. IANAL but I've read recently that it's like that because of contra proferentem
by drdaeman 9y ago
Legalese tend to define things even if that seems absurdly excessive and obvious. IANAL but I've read recently that it's like that because of contra proferentem principle[1]. It's basically a defense against a chance someone may invent some interpretation (different from what's intended) that would look plausible enough.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem
- walshemj 9y agoyes there is one big case in the uk concerning pensions the outcome depended on what seemed to a layperson trivial wording differences in the scheme of arrangement
- drdaeman 9y agoInteresting. Can you please share a link to this story, if you have one?
- walshemj 9y agoIts in connection with BT Section B and later DB pesnions https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-court-over-pension-inflation-switch/ https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-cou... This switch to CPI was bared a few years before for British coal - the two schemes of arrangement differ in a very minor way - that a lay person would say where identical
- gumby 9y agoA lovely case on this matter was over the leaseholder for the World Trade Center in New York against his insurance company: when two planes hit two buildings was it one event or two? The insurance policy rider specified a per event payout. http://www.economist.com/node/1139548 http://www.economist.com/node/1139548