4 ms·
This is correct. If 50 cases interpret and define the word "includes" in a contract, and you decide to use the word "comprises," you may end up burning time a
by jimmydddd 2y ago
This is correct. If 50 cases interpret and define the word "includes" in a contract, and you decide to use the word "comprises," you may end up burning time and money in court and negotiations.
- unethical_ban 2y agoDo engineering specifications use the same center embedded sentences as legal documents? IETF defines may, must, shall, etc. in every document but doesn't use the same format as law.
- rbanffy 2y agoLaw and technical standards are two places where language must be extremely precise to avoid misinterpretation. And destroying Mars probes because of mismatched units.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoI have two different but reinforcing memories that support this. 1) I remember being in a Requirements Review meeting and spending an entire hour debating the meaning of a word. Don't remember the word, but it was something like "includes". 2) I separately remember being in a Requirements review for a feature that concluded successfully. Then later in a Design Review for that feature. And after that, Code and Unit Test reviews of the same feature. Then, months later, the feature was presented to the person who asked for it in the first place and then said, "that's not what I wanted. I wanted xxx instead." Yes, this person was at the Requirements and Design reviews!
- rbanffy 2y agoOh… also detectives. My colleagues say I don’t interview users. They say I interrogate them.
- unethical_ban 2y agoAgreed. My point is that engineering documents read differently than legal documents, but have the same necessity for precision.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 2y agoThis would be a good case for restricted versions of our commonly used languages with as few words and constructs as possible on a simple and consistent grammar. Much like a programming language for defining law.
- delfinom 2y agoBut then a contract would never be able to describe modern day inventions, processes or procedures as deliverables lol
- kevindamm 2y agoYou could, if you treated the object deliverable as a variable, with variables defined meta-circularly via a pre-representation. To do it, lawyers would have to learn some category theory, but I think many of them would enjoy it.
- rbanffy 2y ago> but I think many of them would enjoy it. Many probably discovered it already, without realizing it has a name.
- webspinner 2y agoThere was a book written about something like that in 1949. Well OK OK I'm half joking, since the book wasn't entirely about that!
- seritools 2y agohttps://catala-lang.org/ https://catala-lang.org/
- vivekd 2y agoIn law such words are called terms of art - but most lawyers know them and there's no reason for their use to create incomprehensible documents. It's not like every other word is a term of art. When I was I law school they taught us to write as clearly as possible and avoid legalese. Hopefully that catches on, I don't think legalese is good or necessary. Clarity is better
- MichaelZuo 2y agoReally the main problem is trust and credibility, or lack thereof. Which necissitates all of these adaptations. There’s a famous story of Warren Buffet buying Nebraska Furnitur Mart with no paperwork whatsoever, just some verbal assurances, a handshake, and a TV interview with the esteemed owner.
- Breza 2y agoWell said. I spent years working with an attorney who was first an English major. He wrote the best contracts because his initial focus was making things readable and obvious. The legal formalities came second. I firmly believe that plain language will avoid legal disputes better than PUTTING A BUNCH OF LATIN IN ALL CAPS AD OSTENTATIONEM.