It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Legalese" is the lingua franca of logic. It allows those of us who are lawyers to compose contracts, to deal with one another and to protect our clients and even society because there is absolutely no doubt about what we are saying. From that language one cannot pick apart a verbal misphrasing and use THAT to sue, or to claim contract infringement, or to otherwise skew the purpose of what is supposed to be bartering in good faith. That "good faith" part is mostly supported by a language which itself does not have logical errors.
Secondly, most "legalese" is the sum accumulation of centuries' worth of legal precedent. We've agreed (for reasons listed above) that when I say this, I mean this and only this. When the contract reads this, it means this and only this, and I have three centuries (and more!) of legal precedent in every ruling, every current contract and every decision ever made to support the weight of intention in those words.
Legal writing is of two, broad categories: (i) legal analysis and (ii) legal drafting. Legal analysis is two-fold: (1) predictive analysis, and (2) persuasive analysis. In the United States, in most law schools students must learn legal writing; the courses focus on: (1) predictive analysis, i.e., an outcome-predicting memorandum (positive or negative) of a given action for the attorney's client; and (2) persuasive analysis, e.g., motions and briefs. Although not as widely taught in law schools, legal drafting courses exist; other types of legal writing concentrate upon writing appeals or on interdisciplinary aspects of persuasion.en.wikipedia.org...
Legalese" is the lingua franca of logic. It allows those of us who are lawyers to compose contracts, to deal with one another and to protect our clients and even society because there is absolutely no doubt about what we are saying.
Originally posted by VforVendettea
If it wasn't made to deceive why don't they want the common person to know the difference between law speak and the words misused in English.
Example the word
Understand in English means 'To comprehend'
Understand in Legalese means- 'To agree with.' (Not 'To stand Under'- that is just silly)
But there are many many more examples like that