Is the use of the singular &quot;they/their/them&quot; in legal writing and legislative drafting recognized to be acceptable / appropriate? Is use of the singular &quot;they/their/them&quot; in legal writing and/or legislative drafting recognized to be acceptable / appropriate?
canada Guidance from the Government of Canada Yes. The Government of Canada's guide on legislative drafting has a section on gender-neutral language. It emphasizes that &quot;gender-specific language should not be used in legislation.&quot; The first-listed alternative strategy (alongside others) is to &quot;use the singular 'they' and its other grammatical forms... to refer to indefinite pronouns and singular nouns.&quot; It acknowledges that &quot;[i]n the past, the masculine pronoun was commonly used in the English language to signify the non-specific 'he or she'&quot; but that &quot;[i]t is now generally well-accepted that gender-specific language should only be used for references to persons of one gender or the other.&quot; One example from the guide: Every taxpayer shall file their tax return no later than April 30 of the year following the year in which they earned the income on which they are paying taxes. Guidance from the British Columbia Law Institute In the guide, Gender Diversity in Legal Writing, the institute explains: Canadian lawyers no longer write law, or write about the law, as if it only applies to men of European descent who own real property. ... Language and the law continue to evolve, moving towards even more inclusive language in legal writing. ... The highest levels of our profession have recognized that gender inclusivity is a matter of justice and professionalism. The British Columbia courts require all counsel to identify themselves and their pronouns. ... We have adopted gender-inclusive ways of referring to people, in particular the use of “they” as a singular pronoun. The guide says: They/them is also used as a gender non-specific singular pronoun when a writer does not know a person’s pronouns. Just like the pronoun “you,” they/them can be used in singular or plural forms. One example it provides: Minister Williams said they misspoke when they said their budget was “balanced to the last penny.” French text It is slightly more complex to render French legal writing to be gender-inclusive, given that adjectives and third-person plural pronouns are gendered, but the Government of Canada's Translation Bureau shares several resources, including guidance from the Commission de la construction du Québec, and an article from the Canadian Bar Review.
Yes Written contracts do not have to be written in any particular language or character set. Purely visual contracts are used and are legally binding. If a pictorial term is ambiguous it is resolved by the court the same way as a textual term would be.
You have accurately summed up the conundrum. There is little else to say. You need to accept that there is confusion, even within the law itself, and rely on context to establish in any given instance which meaning is meant. You will come to find that there are many instances of such confusion in the law. The historic technical distinction in the law (especially in tort law) between assault and battery has been collapsed in the everyday vernacular and this had made its way even into the way that the words are used even by law enforcement officers and legislators, who grew up speaking the vernacular language like everyone else. Where I live, in Colorado, the word "menacing" has been used be legislators to replace the historic sense of the word "assault" and the words "assault" and "battery" have become synonymous. But, in England, they are struck with a situation in which the meaning of the word "assault" has become context specific.
I've never heard the phrase used this way, and it wouldn't make any sense, anyway; &quot;indemnity&quot; is security against a consequence, so the existence of civil and criminal consequences would be a double non-indemnification. Maybe ask the lecturer for a published example of this usage.
If you say something twice, eventually they’ll be in conflict Law codes are vast. They deal with many things and sometimes, as here, they deal with the same thing twice. If they duplicated themselves, rather than cross-referencing, every time the law was changed, every single instance would have to be tracked down and changed. Admittedly, that is not as big a problem with digital codes (but still not infallible and definitely time-consuming) but when these would have to be found by hand, it was damn near impossible. Written this way, change it once and it’s changed everywhere. My first boss taught me that. The fired was engineering rather than law but the principle is the same.
company does not warrant that use of the Software will operate uninterrupted or error free. A court will not find that statement to be ambiguous or contradictory. Mere grammatical differences will not void a contract. See Typing errors in legal contract I have recently encountered the following perl of perspicuous and immaculate syntax: Correct grammar and usage is "pearl", not "perl". Perl is a programming language; as for a pearl, you must be thinking of the definition of Pearl Of Wisdom (Merriam-Webster).
Numbering is for the sake of clarity, and is not intrinsically required. If you refer to a section, you need a way to say which section you mean, and a vague description like "up there where I talked about copying" is insufficient. You can refer to a section by a title, if you need to refer to sections within the contract, as long as your titles match what you refer to them as (and you don't have two sections called "Your Rights").
D should be subpoenaing anything and everything they need from anyone and everyone, including E. No matter how good terms you are on, if you are involved in a lawsuit you should not be relying on anyone's good faith to supply you what you need. Suppose you ask nicely and they say yes but, for whatever reason, they don't supply them by your court date. Without a subpoena, if you ask for a continuance the judge will say "tough t*^%^$s"; with a subpoena they will say " Yes certainly, oh, and Mr Sheriff, here is a warrant for the documents, go and get them for me please. Oh and a warrant for the arrest of the person who ignored my subpoena." Where do you want to be?