Why are inserted legislation section identifiers often preceded by a &quot;z&quot;? Many times, in UK legislation, the structure is of numbered sections, like 1., 2., 3... Sometimes a subsequent act will insert sections that append lettered suffixes to the numbered section identifiers that precede their placement position within the act being amended, so that you might easily end up with sections 1, 1A, 2, 3, etc., which is also very sensibly understandable. Other times, one finds added sections that add a Z before the A/B/C, etc. So you may get 1, 2, 2za, 2zb, 2zc, 3, etc. Obviously these are just section enumeration conventions, and could just as easily be entirely arbitrary subject to the whim and caprice of Parliament, but I assume that there is a discernible formula and pattern to them, and I wonder what it is. What is the significance or motivation for the convention of adding an additional 'Z' to inserted subsections? As a corollary, what general procedural codes exist to guide (or bind) the parliamentary legislative draftspeople? Surely there must be style guides that they are bound to follow. What are these, and would they have the force of law?
They follow the rules within the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel drafting guidance 6.4 NUMBERING OF INSERTED PROVISIONS At the beginning of a series 6.4.1 Number as follows when inserting a new whole provision at the beginning of an existing series of provisions (e.g. a subsection at the beginning of a section or a Schedule before the first Schedule). New sections inserted before the first section of an Act are preceded by a letter, starting with “A” (A1, B1, C1 and so on). The same approach is taken in relation to all other divisions of text (other than lettered paragraphs). Thus the Insolvency Act 2000 inserted a Schedule A1 before Schedule 1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, and the Enterprise Act 2002 inserted a new Schedule B1 after Schedule A1. A provision inserted before “A1” (or “ai”) is “ZA1” or (“zai”). In the case of lettered paragraphs, new paragraphs inserted before paragraph (a) are (za), (zb) etc. And paragraphs inserted before (za) are (zza), (zzb) etc. At the end of a series 6.4.2 Where adding a provision at the end of an existing series of provisions of the same kind (e.g. a subsection at the end of a section or a Schedule at the end of the Schedules), the numbering should continue in sequence. Between existing provisions 6.4.3 The following applies when inserting whole provisions between existing provisions. New provisions inserted between 1 and 2 are 1A, 1B, 1C etc. New provisions inserted between 1A and 1B are 1AA, 1AB, 1AC etc. New provisions inserted between 1 and 1A are 1ZA, 1ZB, 1ZC etc. (and not 1AA etc.) New provisions inserted between 1A and 1AA are 1AZA, 1AZB, 1AZC etc. 6.4.4 Do not generate a lower level identifier unless you have to. A new provision between 1AA and 1B is 1AB not 1AAA. But a new provision between 1AA and 1AB is 1AAA. 6.4.5 The above recommendations apply equally to sub-paragraphs with roman numerals and lettered paragraphs. New sub-paragraphs between sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are (ia), (ib), (ic) etc. New paragraphs between paragraphs (a) and (b) are (aa), (ab), (ac) etc. New paragraphs between paragraphs (a) and (aa) are (aza), (azb), (azc) etc. Series of more than 26 6.4.6 After Z use Z1, Z2, Z3 etc. For example, after section 360Z insert sections 360Z1, 360Z2 and so on; after paragraph (z) insert paragraphs (z1), (z2), (z3). Re-using numbers 6.4.7 If you are inserting new text at a place where there has previously been a repeal, do not re-use the number.
This is very common in all sorts of legal documents, not just the United States Code. Another familiar example where this is seen is on checks. It serves as a sort of &quot;redundancy check&quot;, to help catch errors where either the words or the numerals could have been incorrectly transcribed. Of course, one could ask why similar redundancy isn't used to avoid errors in other contexts; there doesn't seem to be a good answer for this besides &quot;tradition&quot;. Some people feel the practice is obsolete and should be abandoned, e.g. https://www.butlersnow.com/2020/04/five-5-reasons-to-stop-writing-numbers-like-this/.
Do newer contracts superceed prior ones? It depends on whether the contracts conflict with each other. That is why many contracts contain language akin to &quot;This contract supersedes and replaces any previous or contemporaneous agreements between the parties&quot;. The parties would need to adapt such clause if the contracts are compatible and they intend to maintain them. I have seen many contracts saying tgis &quot;this will happens unless agreed in writing to do something else&quot;.However many contracts do not have this in written. The main purpose of that language is to specify that any amendments to the contract shall be in writing. That precaution makes it easier to ascertain whose version of the contract is binding, such as where party A alleges an oral amendment and party B denies that such amendment was agreed upon. Your outline of the agreements between A and Z is incomplete. At the outset, the contracts are not necessarily incompatible: The first contract does not provide a deadline for payment; it is unclear when the 2nd contract will be in force; there is not enough information to discern whether the 2nd contract is an amendment of the 1st one, or an independent agreement involving unrelated considerations; there is no indication that the 2nd contract replaces and supersedes the 1st one; and if Z is the draftsman in both contracts, the doctrine of contra proferentem could favor A's legal position. Therefore, the matter of superseding contracts depends on various factors.
Prologue, a magazine published by the National Archives, had an article about the missing S back in 2012. In short, the problem was due to a scrivener's error. Congress recognized the error at roughly the same time it submitted the amendment to the states but decided it was too late to fix it: There was a brief discussion of the possibility of recalling the joint resolution for reconsideration in each chamber, but Congress was operating under severe time pressures as it worked toward adjournment for the summer, and it was decided that the record of congressional debates and actions on successive versions of the joint resolution made the intent so clear that the missing s could not affect interpretation of the text. The proposed amendment was therefore allowed to go to the states in its imperfect form. Given the basically undisputed nature of the error, I think it would be unlikely that courts would indulge an argument that &quot;department&quot; should be interpreted differently than &quot;departments,&quot; at least in any way that would change the outcome of a dispute under the 25th Amendment.
If I read this correctly, (and more context would support this, but I don't have time to do research at the moment; I also don't have the book in question, so I'm only basing off of the provided snippet) then it appears two different (higher court) justices making rules, not only to guide their own judgements before them, but for reference for lower court justices to base their rulings against. Note that these two cases appear to have taken place about 3 decades apart, and in two different countries, albeit with related legal codes. The Purple is "identical" to the Green, because their wording is near enough identical between the two passages. I don't think "dumbness" or lack of distinguishably is implied. Rather McRae's rule is Conditions Green AND (logical "and") Condition Red, while the British rule is just Condition Green. The orange text suggests that, under the rule in Associated Japanese Bank Ltd v Credit du Nord SA, Condition Red need NOT be shown. I.e., you don't need to show that a party is responsible for convincing the other party of an unreasonable falsehood, to prevent the first party from using the doctrine of "common mistake". It also suggests that the rule from McRae does impose Condition Red. Essentially, the text is describing two different (non-exhaustive) tests for determining when the doctrine of "common mistake" can be invoked.
The official Scottish government website, under the section headed Proof of identity uses the terms &quot;could&quot; and &quot;can&quot; which, in the UK, do not impose a statutory duty or obligation unlike &quot;must&quot;. It also confirms that: Landlords who rent properties to tenants in England and Wales must check that a tenant has a right to rent, and live, in the UK. You don't need to do this check in Scotland. (My emboldenment) So it seems there is no lawful reason to ask the question but asking, in and of itself, does not appear to be in breach of the Equality Act 2010. It is what the prospective landlord does with that information that may, or may not, make it so either by: s.13 Direct discrimination (1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. ... (5)If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others. ... Or s.19 Indirect discrimination (1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if— (a)A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b)it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c)it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d)A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (3)The relevant protected characteristics are— ... race ... For completeness and clarity: s.9 Race (1)Race includes— ... (b)nationality; (c)ethnic or national origins. ...
The right belongs to the federal government because the Constitution says it does, in Article 1 (section 8, clause 3). This, and the other rights listed in that section, are known as enumerated rights - that is, somebody has explicitly listed them out. The section begins The Congress shall have power .. and each clause may be read separately with that phrase prepended. They should each all be read together with the final clause, which is To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. In the context of the Constitution, this enumeration means that Congress alone has the authority to make such laws. In particular, Congress is the only legislature with the right to make laws governing commerce between states and each other, states and Indian nations, or states and foreign nations. Other sections and their clauses enumerate rights explicitly reserved to the States and the People, and further clarify that any rights not enumerated are also reserved thusly.
"Acknowledged" is fine. There is no "preferable" substitute with which to prefix your signature. As a precaution, never leave too much space between the end of clauses and your signature, lest another clause later on gets slid in without your consent (a public institution is unlikely to incur such misconduct, though). Also, always be sure to ask for a copy of the contract/agreement you sign.