As Such in Legal Writing

Explanation: It has no precursor here; It cannot be replaced by a list or any other word in the first sentence. The author of Example 2 incorrectly used a generic transition phrase as such. So the word would be a better choice. A bigger problem, however, is that a reader may not be sure whether a particular sentence should be restrictive or non-restrictive. For example, it might have been intended that such a sentence in the second of the three examples above should be restrictive – perhaps the meaning to be conveyed is not that Richard collects books on all Renaissance painters, but that he collects books on Italian painters of the early Renaissance. It would be premature to rely on a comma to ensure that a particular sentence is read as non-restrictive. A recent CSO case clarifies the law as to whether municipalities can regulate boathouses and whether the Building Code applies to the same, and notes that (i) municipalities are responsible for the Lakes Ontario area and apply zoning orders to lakes that govern the construction of boathouses and other structures; and (ii) the Building Code applies to such structures, unless otherwise prohibited by the Articles and the Public Lands Act. Given the general nature of the class in question (painters) and the narrowness of the objects in the sentence (two Italian painters of the early Renaissance), the reasonable reader would assume that Richard does not collect books on all painters, but rather books on painters comparable to those listed. In other words, such a sentence reduces the scope of the names – it behaves like a restrictive clause. (For more information on restrictive and non-restrictive covenants, see this February 2007 post.) It is a question of law. As such, it is subject to de novo review. But the wording of the contract was so confusing that it not only led to lengthy litigation, but also led to dissent from a federal judge who believed such a sentence was not restrictive. The phrase itself is sometimes misused as a universal (but grammatically incorrect) transition phrase.

It is a pronoun that must have an identifiable precursor. If it does not have one, its use is bad. The non-restrictive use of such an expression makes sense only if the meaning or scope of the class represented by the previous name might otherwise not be clear to the reader. That`s why the last of the above examples is quite ridiculous. In view of the general nature of the preceding name (products), the narrowness of the names contained in the sentence and the absence of a comma before it, the Court considered that the language at issue was similar to the first of the three examples mentioned above. Explanation: Example 3 is wrong because it has no precursor. Replace as such therefore. But in Example 4, a legal question can replace one, so the sentence is grammatically correct. The alternative would be that the names of such a sentence simply represent examples of the class represented by the previous name. This would give the impression that such a sentence is a non-restrictive clause. As for the example sentence above, this could be achieved either by reducing the class represented by the previous name (see the first example below), or by including a wider range of names in such a sentence (see the second example below): Explanation: Here is the precursor of such a president. She can replace it: she is the president of the board of directors.

As Chair, she is responsible for scheduling meetings. Ross Guberman (legal drafting expert) has the following to say about “equal” in this context: “archaic and clumsy – a parody of legal language.” The Oxford English Dictionary agrees, suggesting that the word “is often only the equivalent of a personal pronoun; he, she, she, she.” Richard collected books on painters such as Botticelli and Donatello. She is the Chair of the Board of Directors. In this role, she is responsible for meeting planning. Given the potential for confusion, do not use them. Instead, be specific in the description of the class in question. If there is a risk of uncertainty regarding the limits of the category, address that uncertainty as recommended in this April 2007 post. And whatever you do, don`t list the hell of obvious members of a class; See this article and this article on unnecessary elaboration. Congress intended to provide an exhaustive list of examples, and it did not mention any websites. Therefore, the law does not apply to websites.

All three – said, the same thing and so on – are useless lawyers, even if used correctly. Avoid them (even if you can use them correctly). The following examples illustrate that this as such is grammatically correct only if one has a precursor nearby. For an example of a contractual dispute caused by confusion regarding such a term, see Lawler Mfg. v. Bradley Corp., No. 2007-1533, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11275 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2008).

(Many thanks to reader Mike Wokasch for telling me about Patently-O`s post on this case.) The contract in question stated that a specific patent license fee applies “when a licensed unit is billed or shipped in combination with another product, such as an emergency shower or eye wash.” The question put to the Court was whether such a sentence reduced the scope of the name at issue, `product`, that is to say, whether that expression was restrictive or non-restrictive. The court overturned the lower court and ruled that such a sentence was restrictive – that the licensing rate in question did not apply to all products, but only to products similar to those in that sentence. Professor Garner will give you the keys to get the most out of your writing skills – in letters, memos, pleadings, etc. The seminar covers five essential skills for persuasive writing: phrases such as “we`ve never received any” are, in the words of Bryan Garner, “barbaric.” So avoid. Putting a comma before the Like sentence, as in the previous two examples, would help ensure that the Like phrase does not become restrictive. Attend the most popular CLE seminar of all time. More than 215,000 people – including lawyers, judges, trainee lawyers and paralegals – have benefited since the early 1990s. You will learn the keys to professional writing and acquire simple techniques to make your letters, memos and letters more meaningful.