Pelican Think Tank and Fun with legal terms: E.G. (Not just for Attorneys! ;-)

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

I seem to be finding myself writing several legal opinions these past several months. I am not an attorney, I have played one in a couple of school productions, I have driven past a couple of law schools, but it has been a very, very long time since I stayed at a Holiday Inn.

So imagine yourself, sitting alone with a few attorneys on the opposite side of the table. The argument is about what E.G. means in a legally binding contract. All parties seem to agree the contract is binding, consideration offered, provided, some deliveries made...

I will not disclose the position I took, nor will I give the exact wording. HOWEVER: there is nothing like a good example that has no meaning to my situation -

We will provide storage at no expense if the product is not able to be shipped or received when: 1. Situation outside the control of the receiving party (E.G. storms, strike, road closure), 2. No carrier is available, 3. Winter passes are snowed in, 4. Similar situations.


So, it was rather interesting when I stated E.G. meant one thing and the opposing parties said I was dead wrong. I also found the lack of connecting/supporting verbiage between point 3. and 4.(and/or/with/how/why) to be interesting as well.


What does E.G. mean to the greater Pelican Think Tank??? No fair peeking!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

that's an easy one. e.g. is "for example."

how can there be debate about that?

[Nostril Cheese]

e.g. literally means for example. Exempli gratia..

If you're dealing with lawyers, list out every possible thing that could conceivably go wrong. I've been down this road before..

[mreid]

Why is E.G. capitalized? Who wrote the contract (it is poorly worded)?

E.G., is used to provide examples of the types of situations, but it has no place in a legal contract. Instead, use including, but not limited to...

Arguing about this is futile as the claus will be struck.

[lane912]

"shall"

not maybe-

[stomachmonkey]

Try wrapping your head around losing $1.5 M because the contract said refundable instead of recoup able.

I have come to realize disputes over contracts serve only to prove who had the better attorney that day vs which party was wrong or right.

YMMV

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Try wrapping your head around losing $1.5 M because the contract said refundable instead of recoup able.

I have come to realize disputes over contracts serve only to prove who had the better attorney that day vs which party was wrong or right.

YMMV

Indeed.

However, the role of an attorney is not to find the "truth" or to defend what is "right or wrong." The role of an attorney is to provide the best offense or defense for his client. In the case of contracts, it often results in the parsing of words rather than demonstrating which party is right or, more generally, what is the right thing to do. To the general public and the losing party, this is what tends to make attorneys as appealing as a Drano enema. For the winning party, it's what makes them tolerable.

[stomachmonkey]

Never said an attorneys role was to find the truth.

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Yep. I am sitting there saying it is to provide possible examples or for example. They are stating it is showing the only and specific items that are allowable.

Horrible, horrible clause, poorly written and far too vague.


Incidentally, I HATE "including, but not limited to". Provides a door through which a freight train could pass. Sideways.


I'll probably never be able to follow-up on this one but it goes down the road of: Misquoting the contract, quoting another contract and stating it is the one we are working on, removing verbiage in your quote to make your point and ignore the contract.

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.

becomes

Jack and Jill crossed the street to get the pail of water.

or

Jack went up the hill to fetch a pail.


I just love these things....

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I see "e.g." used interchangeably with "i.e." ("id est", or "that is") all the time. Drives me nuts. They're not the same thing! The former is to show an example and the latter is to clarify or add information to a statement.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Groesbeck Hurricane

Yep. I am sitting there saying it is to provide possible examples or for example. They are stating it is showing the only and specific items that are allowable.

Then they are being disengenuous. Every contract ever written would have pages and pages of exact examples to cover all circumstances. "For example" is used specifically to avoid that, list a few common examples that set parameters against which other occurrences can be measured and decided if they fit within the example set or are outside of it.

This is a situation of lawyers being intentionally obtuse, otherwise known as lying.