5 ms·
I think that in the first (ambiguous) phrasing there is an implicit (common-sense?) understanding of: the employee shall be reimbursed for all expenses if the e
by pama 3y ago
I think that in the first (ambiguous) phrasing there is an implicit (common-sense?) understanding of: the employee shall be reimbursed for all expenses if the employee asks for it or wants it, ie the employee has the right to ask for and only then the employer has the obligation to reimburse all expenses.
- torstenvl 3y agoNo, there is no reason to appeal to "common sense." It is the plain and unambiguous meaning of the text itself.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI think you may have been reading too many IETF documents. Legal text doesn't come with a list of definitions that attempt to lock e.g. "shall" down in stone.
- torstenvl 3y agoI rarely read IETF documents. But as a practicing lawyer for about 15 years, I've read, interpreted, drafted, advised on, and litigated countless uses of the word "shall" in agreements (as well as in statutes and regulations). In fact my first pro bono case in BigLaw, on behalf of a nonprofit in a corporate election case, hinged on it. Shall is not this mysterious ambiguous beast the link makes it out to be.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI will absolutely defer to your judgement then. Which leaves the problem of intent ... is what I termed "way #2" above what was intended? Or is this just sloppy use of language with unintended side effects?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3c6bYDXLMj 3y ago[flagged]