Реферат: Lexico-sementic characterstics of business letter correspondence

"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 nodifference in the case you are consent in using one or theother. "Shall ", however, is stronger than "will ". Going fromone to another might suggest that one obligation is strongersomehow than another. Perhaps, one's position may determinethe choice. "You shall ", however is bad form.

"Understanding " It is a dangerous word. If you meanagreement you ought to say so. If you view of affairsthatthereis no agreement, "understanding" as a noun suggeststhe opposite or comes close to it. .it stands, in fact, as amonument to unsatisfactory compromise. The softness of theword conjures up pleasing images. "In accordance with our understanding ..." can be interpreted in a number of ways.

"Effect " Here is a little word which uses areinsufficiently praised. Such a phrase as "We willproduce..." is inaccurate, because the work will besubcontracted and the promise-maker technically defaults.Somebody else does the producing. Why not say "We will produce or cause to be produced..."? This is in fact often said, butit jars the ear. Accordingly "We will effect production ..." highlights the point with greater skill.

"Idea " This word is bad for your own side but helpful against others. Ideas as such are not generally protected by law. If you submit something to a company with any hope of reward you must find better phrasing than "my idea ". Perhaps, "my format " or possibly "my property " is more appropriate. Naturally, if you can develop an idea into a format or protectable property, the more ambitious phrasing will be better justified.

"As between us " It is useful, because people are always forgetting or neglecting to mention that a great many interests may be involved in what appears to be simple dialogue. "I reserve control over ..." and "You have the final power of decision over ..." sound like division of something into spheres, but frequently "I " am in turn controlled by my investors and "You " - by a foreign parent company, making thelanguage of division inaccurate. Neither of us really controlsanything, at least ultimately.

Thus it will be useful to say, "As between us, I control ..." and so on.

"Spanning " Time periods are awkward things: "...for a period commencing August,1 and expiring November,15 ..." is clumsy; "...from August,1 to November,15 ..." is skeletal when informing how long a contract obligation endures.

But during particular time periods one may be reporting for work, for example, three days out of every five, or doing something else that is within but not completely parallel to the entire time period involved.

A happy solution is the word "Spanning ". It goes this way:

"Throughout the period spanning August,1 - November,15 inclusive you will render services as a consultant three days out of every five."

It will be useful to put "inclusive " at the end for without it you may lose the date, concluding the period being spanned.

"Negotiate in Good Faith " The negotiators have worked until late at night, all points but one have been worked out, the contract will never be signed without resolution of some particular impasse. What is there to do?

Agree to "Negotiate in Good Faith " on the disputed point at later time. This is done frequently, but make no mistake about the outcome. The open point remains open. If it happens to be vital you may have no contract at all. "Negotiate in Good Faith " is one of those evasions that must be used sparingly. At the right time it prevents collapse, at the wrong time it promotes it.

"Confirm " It suggests, of course, that something has been agreed upon before. You are writing now only to make a record of it. "I write to confirm that you admit substantial default in delivery " Frequently we encounter it in ordinary correspondence: "Confirming your order ", "Confirming the main points of our agreement ", and so on.

"Furnish " It is a handy word which usefulness lies in the avoidance of worse alternatives. Suppose you transact to deliver a variety of elements as a package.