Lexico-semantic characteristics of business letter correspondence, Детальна інформація

Business letters throught lexics

From the lexicological point of view isolated  words  and phrases mean  very little.  In context they mean a great deal, and in the special context of  contractual  undertakings  they mean everything.  Contract  English  is  a prose organised according to plan.

And it  includes,  without limitation,  the right but not the obligation to select words from a wide variety  of  verbal implements and write clearly, accurately, and/or with style.

Two phases of writing contracts exist:  in the  first, we react to  proposed contracts drafted by somebody else,  and in the second,  which presents greater challenge,  we compose  our own.

A good contract reads like a classic story.  It narrates, in orderly sequence,  that one part should do this and another should do that,  and perhaps  if  certain  events  occur,  the outcome will be changed. All of the rate cards charts, and other reference material ought to be ticked off one  after another according to the sense of it. Tables and figures, code words and mystical references are  almost  insulting  unless  organised and   defined.  Without  organisation  they  baffle, without definition they entrap.

In strong stance one can send back the offending document and request a substitute document in  comprehensible  English. Otherwise a series of questions may be put by letter,  and the replies often will have contractual force if the  document  is later contested.

A sampling of contract phrases

My observations about English so far have been general in nature. Now it appears  logical  to  examine  the  examples  of favourite contract  phrases,  which  will help ease the way to fuller examination of entire negotiations and contracts. a full glossary is beyond reach but in what follows there is a listing of words and phrases that turn up in  great  many  documents, with comments on each one. The words and phrases are presented in plausible contract sequence, not alphabetically.

"Whereas" Everyman's idea of how a contract begins.  Some lawyers dislike "Whereas" and use recitation clauses so marked to distinguish them from the text in the  contract.  There  the real issue lies;  one must be careful about mixing up recitals of history with what is actually being agreed on. For example,  it would be folly to write: "Whereas A admits owing B $10,000..." because the  admission  may  later  haunt  one,  especially if drafts are never signed and the debt be disputed.  Rather less damaging would be:

"Whereas the  parties have engaged   in   a   series   of  transactions   resulting  in   dispute  over  accounting  between them..."

On the whole "Whereas" is acceptable, but what follows it needs particular care.

"It is understood and agreed" On the one hand, it usually adds nothing, because every clause in the contract is "understood and agreed" or it would not be written into it.  On the  other  hand, what it adds is an implication that other clauses are not backed up by this phrase: by including the one you exclude the other. «It is understood and agreed» ought to be banished.

"Hereinafter" A  decent  enough little word doing the job of six ("Referred to later in this  document").  "Hereinafter" frequently sets  up abbreviated names for the contract parties.

For example:

"Knightsbridge International  Drapes and Fishmonger,  Ltd  (hereinafter "Knightsbridge").

"Including Without Limitation" It is useful and at  times essential phrase.  Earlier  I've noted that mentioning certain things may exclude others by implication. Thus,

"You may  assign  your exclusive British and Commonwealth rights"

suggests that you may not assign other rights assuming you have any. Such pitfalls may be avoided by phrasing such as:

"You may  assign  any  and  all  your  rights  including without limitation your exclusive  British   and Commonwealth rights".

But why specify any rights if all of them  are  included? Psychology is  the  main  reason;  people want specific things underscored in   the   contracts,   and   "Including   Without Limitation" indulges this prediction.

"Assignees and  Licensees"  These  are  important  words which acceptability depends on one's point of view

"Knightsbridge, its assignees and licensees..."

suggests that Knightsbridge may hand you over to somebody else after contracts are signed.  If you yourself happen to be Knightsbridge, you  will want that particular right and should use the phrase.

"Without Prejudice" It is a classic. The British use this phrase all by itself,  leaving the reader intrigued.  "Without Prejudice" to  what  exactly?  Americans  spell  it  out  more elaborately, but  if  you  stick  to  American  way,  remember "Including Without Limitation",  or you may  accidentally exclude something by implication.  Legal rights,  for example, are not the same thing as remedies the law  offers  to  enforce  them. Thus the American might write:

"Without prejudice to any of my existing or future rights or remedies..."

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.