Предыдущая страница реферата | 1  2  3  4 | Следующая страница реферата

And this leads to another phrase.

"And/or" It  is an essential barbarism.  In the preceding example I've used the disjunctive "rights or  remedies".  This is not always good enough, and one may run into trouble with

"Knightsbridge or Tefal or either of them shall..."

What about both together?  "Knightsbridge and Tefal", perhaps, followed by "or either".  Occasionally the alternatives become  overwhelming, thus   and/or   is   convenient   and  generally  accepted, although more detail is better.

"Shall" If one says  "Knightsbridge  and/or  Tefal  shall have..." or   "will   have...",  legally  it  should  make  no difference in the case you are consent in using  one  or  the other. "Shall",  however,  is stronger than "will". Going from one to another might suggest that one obligation  is  stronger somehow than  another.  Perhaps,  one's position may determine the choice. "You shall", however is bad form.

"Understanding" It is  a  dangerous  word.  If  you  mean agreement you  ought  to  say  so.  If  you  view  of  affairs that there is no agreement,  "understanding" as a noun suggests the opposite or comes close to it.  .it stands,  in fact, as a monument to unsatisfactory compromise.  The  softness of  the word conjures  up  pleasing  images.  "In  accordance with our understanding..." can be interpreted in a number of ways.

"Effect" Here  is  a   little   word   which   uses   are insufficiently praised.    Such   a   phrase   as   "We   will produce..."  is inaccurate,   because   the  work   will    be subcontracted and   the  promise-maker  technically  defaults. Somebody else does the producing. Why not say "We will produce or cause to be produced..."?  This is in fact often said,  but it jars the ear.  Accordingly "We  will  effect  production..." highlights the point with greater skill.

"Idea" This word is bad for your own  side  but  helpful against others.  Ideas as such are not generally protected  by law. If you  submit  something  to  a  company with any hope of reward you must find better phrasing than "my idea".  Perhaps, "my format"  or  possibly  "my  property" is more appropriate. Naturally, if you  can  develop  an  idea  into  a  format  or protectable property,  the  more  ambitious  phrasing  will be better justified.

"As between us" It is useful,  because people are  always forgetting or   neglecting   to  mention  that  a  great  many interests may  be  involved  in  what  appears  to  be  simple dialogue. "I reserve control over..." and "You have the final power of decision over..." sound like  division  of  something into spheres,  but  frequently  "I" am in turn controlled by my investors and "You" - by a foreign parent company,  making the language of division inaccurate. Neither of us really controls anything, at least ultimately.

Thus  it  will  be  useful  to say, "As between us, I control..." and so on.

"Spanning" Time  periods  are  awkward  things: "...for  a period commencing August,1 and  expiring  November,15..."  is clumsy; "...from  August,1 to November,15..." is skeletal when informing how long a contract obligation endures.

But  during  particular time  periods  one  may be reporting for work,  for example, three days out of every five, or doing something else that is within but not completely parallel to the entire time period involved.

A happy solution is the word "Spanning". It goes this way:

"Throughout the period spanning August,1 - November,15 inclusive you will render services  as  a   consultant three days out of every five."

It will  be  useful to put "inclusive" at the end for without it you may lose the date, concluding the period being spanned.

"Negotiate in Good Faith"  The  negotiators  have  worked until late at night,  all points but one have been worked out, the contract will never be signed without resolution  of  some particular impasse.  What is there to do?

Agree to "Negotiate in Good Faith" on the disputed point at  later  time. This  is done frequently,  but  make no mistake about the outcome. The open point remains open. If it happens to be  vital  you  may have no  contract at all.  "Negotiate in Good Faith" is one of those evasions that must be used sparingly. At the right time it prevents collapse, at the wrong time it promotes it.

"Confirm" It suggests, of course, that something has been agreed upon before. You are writing now only to make a record of it. "I write to confirm that you admit  substantial  default  in delivery" Frequently we encounter it in ordinary correspondence: "Confirming your order", "Confirming the main points of our agreement", and so on.

"Furnish" It is a handy word which  usefulness  lies  in the avoidance  of worse alternatives. Suppose you transact to deliver a variety of elements as  a package.

"Deliver"  leaves out, even  though  it  may  well  be implied,  the preliminary purchase or engagement of these elements, and at the other end it goes  very far in suggesting responsibility for getting the package unscathed to where it belongs.

Alternatives also  may go wrong,  slightly,  each with its own implications.

"Assign" involves legal title;  "give" is  lame  and  probably  untrue; "transmit" means  send.

Thus  each word misses some important - detail or implies unnecessary things.

"Furnish"  is  sometimes useful when more popular words fall short or go too far. It has a good professional ring to it as well:

"I agree to furnish all of the elements listed on Exhibit A annexed hereto and made part hereof by incorporation."

Рекомендуем скачать другие рефераты по теме: источники реферат, оформление доклада, контрольные 8 класс.



Предыдущая страница реферата | 1  2  3  4 | Следующая страница реферата

Поделитесь этой записью или добавьте в закладки