"...Consider the fact that Congress once passed legislation declaring that "September 16, 1940 means June 27, 1950." In New Zealand, the law says that a "day" means a period of 72 hours while an Australian statute defines "citrus fruit" to include eggs. To American lawyers, a 20-year old document is "ancient" while a 17-year old person is an "infant." At one time or another, the law has defined "dead person" to include nuns, "daughter" to include son, and "cow" to include horse; it has even declared white to be black.
At times, legalese appears to be almost willfully perverse. Standard legal agreements, for example, typically contain some version of the following clause:
The masculine shall include the feminine, the singular shall include the plural, and the present tense shall include the past and future tenses.
In other words, the law sees absolutely no difference between "the boy becomes a man" and "girls will be girls."
Well, then. All of this would be of purely academic interest if it weren't for the fact that legal documents are part of the basic infrastructure of life. Isn't it odd that the most important events in our lives require slogging through language that almost nobody understands?
Think about it: getting married or divorced; buying or renting property; investing a nest egg; making a will; serving on a jury; declaring bankruptcy; taking out insurance; borrowing money; getting sued; undergoing surgery - each one of these transactions involves lengthy documents that we are expected to sign, usually without having had sufficient time to read them. Indeed, a person who insists on reading everything that he signs is regarded as a crank of the first order.
And yet, if you ask an educated person, he will often tell you, in self-satisfied tones, that he would never sign a document that he hadn't read. "Wouldn't dream of it," he'll say, perhaps tugging at his bow tie and straightening his horn rimmed glasses, "I won't agree to anything unless I have time to read it over."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't believe this hypothetical educated person. Does he actually read every car rental contract in full? Does he pore over every agreement sent to him by a credit card company, and the warranty on every product that he buys? Does he read every software licensing agreement before clicking "I agree?" If the answer to all of these is "yes," then I daresay he also lines his hat with aluminum foil.
Consider the case of Justin Noe, a British motorist who was pulled over by the police in 1999 and asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. He agreed, but on the condition that he first be allowed to consult the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, that is, the very law that explains a citizen's rights when taking breathalyzer tests. A court later decided that Noe's request was so patently unreasonable as to amount to a refusal to submit to the test, the implication being that he was probably drunk. Clearly, anybody who asks to read a statute must be intoxicated.Well, then. All of this would be of purely academic interest if it weren't for the fact that legal documents are part of the basic infrastructure of life. Isn't it odd that the most important events in our lives require slogging through language that almost nobody understands?
Think about it: getting married or divorced; buying or renting property; investing a nest egg; making a will; serving on a jury; declaring bankruptcy; taking out insurance; borrowing money; getting sued; undergoing surgery - each one of these transactions involves lengthy documents that we are expected to sign, usually without having had sufficient time to read them. Indeed, a person who insists on reading everything that he signs is regarded as a crank of the first order.
And yet, if you ask an educated person, he will often tell you, in self-satisfied tones, that he would never sign a document that he hadn't read. "Wouldn't dream of it," he'll say, perhaps tugging at his bow tie and straightening his horn rimmed glasses, "I won't agree to anything unless I have time to read it over."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't believe this hypothetical educated person. Does he actually read every car rental contract in full? Does he pore over every agreement sent to him by a credit card company, and the warranty on every product that he buys? Does he read every software licensing agreement before clicking "I agree?" If the answer to all of these is "yes," then I daresay he also lines his hat with aluminum foil.
Consider the case of Justin Noe, a British motorist who was pulled over by the police in 1999 and asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. He agreed, but on the condition that he first be allowed to consult the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, that is, the very law that explains a citizen's rights when taking breathalyzer tests. A court later decided that Noe's request was so patently unreasonable as to amount to a refusal to submit to the test, the implication being that he was probably drunk. Clearly, anybody who asks to read a statute must be intoxicated..."
partyofthefirstpart.com
volokh.com
Also see
The Legalese Hall of Shame
partyofthefirstpart.com |
