The Devil is in the Detail
The Devil is in the Detail
(OP)
Years ago I when newly working for an engineering supply company I wrote my first official company technical bulletin.
I cannot even remember what it was other than it was carefully checked by the company legal eagle and he condescendingly pointed out that the use of the word "any" could legally be dangerous. I remember protesting that in the context "any" was correct. He said the Devil is in the detail and that word had to come out.
Well I have remembered his comments, and over the last 30 years have studiously avoided its use.
Very recently I read a technical response/proposal to us from a potential joint venture partner where the word "any" was used. I understand exactly what the writer meant but in a legal sense "any" left no margin whatsoever for error and would leave us legally up the creek if the slightest thing went wrong even if we were not responsible.
I wonder how many others have experienced small words that may make sense technically but have large legal ramification?
I cannot even remember what it was other than it was carefully checked by the company legal eagle and he condescendingly pointed out that the use of the word "any" could legally be dangerous. I remember protesting that in the context "any" was correct. He said the Devil is in the detail and that word had to come out.
Well I have remembered his comments, and over the last 30 years have studiously avoided its use.
Very recently I read a technical response/proposal to us from a potential joint venture partner where the word "any" was used. I understand exactly what the writer meant but in a legal sense "any" left no margin whatsoever for error and would leave us legally up the creek if the slightest thing went wrong even if we were not responsible.
I wonder how many others have experienced small words that may make sense technically but have large legal ramification?





RE: The Devil is in the Detail
pennpoint
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
Ray Reynolds
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
"unless otherwise approved" Does a lack of comment on something imply approval?
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
Larry
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
Some years ago, vapor "barrier" became vapor "retarder", a less ironclad term.
When I visit a jobsite, it is a "Jobsite Observation Visit", not a "Jobsite Inspection." Apparently the word "inspection" lets the Contractor off the hook somehow.
DaveAtkins
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
Related to "any" is "either"; just as "any" can mean "at least one" or it can mean "all", "either" can mean "both" or it can mean "one of the two".
That's not to say that there are no uses for "any" or "either". "If there are any..." is unambiguous, and the either in an "either...or" setup is unambiguous.
The "or", on the other hand..."or" in English has two meanings--one is "this but not that" (exclusive), and the other is "this, that, or both" (inclusive). In conversation, context usually makes the meaning clear, but contract reading is not a cooperative conversational exercise; it's a legal "find the loophole" exercise. People like to throw in "and/or" to cover the inclusive case, but that's really just as ambiguous; it leaves it up to the reader to decide whether they want the "and" meaning or the "or" meaning. "This, that, or both" is ugly but unambiguous.
Terms like "herein", "above", "below" are not clear. Within this paragraph? This section? This chapter?
Then there's scope. "Mark locations when shown on the plans." Does that mean "Mark the locations when the plans say that locations have to be marked"? Or does it mean "Mark the locations when the locations are shown on the plans"?
Punctuation also matters: "When the work is suspended(,) at the convenience of A, B will assume the responsibility for..." If the comma is there, the sentence can mean that B's assumption of responsibility is at the convenience of A. What's really intended is that B assumes responsibility only when the suspension is at A's convenience. The comma needs to go, not only because that's what your English teacher says but because it changes the legal meaning.
On a more technical note, there's qualification vs. certification. Certification is stronger and carries more liability for whoever issues the certification.
I could go on for pages about "details" that matter. I could also go on for pages about things that are standard in contract language that ought not to be, but that's yet another topic.
I'll shut up now.
Hg
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
a great thread.
These are the money-maker words.
Lawyers love them. If they can get them into contracts or legal documents, or, better yet, into the law itself, they can live high of the hog for years to come, even unto the seventh generation.
The main consequence in the laws of our countries is that it gives rise to the whole situation of "precident", except that that is never a singular word. No precident or multiple conflicting precidents are favourite, one by itself is dangerously limiting.
"Precident" defines a whole class of money-making for lawyers that often, just should not be. This is how to get the most blatant criminals off, or the most innocent of the babes in the wood sent down for a long time, though this is irrelevant. What is relevent is the amoun t of billable time to spent exploring and arguing about meaning and interpretation.
Having enacted a law that everyone in government has mulled over for years, argued about sent back for re-drafting a few hundred times and finally thought is OK to go on the statute books, the very first transgressor discovers that all of a sudden no two lawyers or judges can agree on exactly what it means or what is intended by it.
One of my favourite words and often found in legislation, is "reasonable". If here is one thing lawyers do not know the meaning of, as it applies to themselves, yet it is this word they love because it is one of the biggest "money-makers".
An example is "reasonable force". In the US, if a burglar breaks into your home (or, it seems, if you just think it is a burglar) "reasonable force" means shoot him dead. In the UK a completely different set of judges and lawyers have, after years of wrangling and money-making, arrived at a situation where most householders loathe burglars as they are likely to be sued by them for the least infringment of the burglars civil liberties etc. The door was too difficult to open, the coffee wasn't ready, the window too small.... and every homeowner should beware of any nasty sudden surprises that could cause trauma to the burglar in his stressful occupation. Be very careful not to cough too loudly when you come across a burglar as it may cause his heart to race.
An handy alternative to "reasonable" is "due" e.g. "due regard", "due force" etc.
In engineering contracts for supply or manufacture a term to strike out imediately from the liabilities clauses is "latent defects" as this is generally something that can be brought to bear on you at any time in the future.
Latents defects are things you couldn't find and never anticipated. This doesn't stop lawyers wanting to include this as a catch all for their reirement years.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
You earn a star because "reasonable" must go on the list of confusing (duplicitous?) words. If not the actual powder keg it must be the fuse. Everybody understands what is meant by "reasonable", but actually define and agree on its exactness?
RE: The Devil is in the Detail
Bung
Life is non-linear...