that-which errors in the UCC?
An astute reader points out a concern in UCC section 2-714, which, he says "I've been staring at for the
better part of a day now." He writes:
This is from UCC 2-714:
Wayne Schiess
Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand | Better Legal Writing | Writing for the Legal Audience | The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
This is from UCC 2-714:
Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subsection (3) of Section 2-607) he may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable.Excuse me, but I think the drafters intended "is reasonable" to restrict "any manner," as in:
Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subsection (3) of Section 2-607) he may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any manner that is reasonable.Or even better:
Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (subsection (3) of Section 2-607) he may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any reasonable manner.
Wayne Schiess
Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand | Better Legal Writing | Writing for the Legal Audience | The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
I think the UCC provision is perfectly clear.
This made-up distinction between which and that is a lie and doesn't really exist. If I recall correctly, the British use which and that interchangeably.
Reply to this
Both "That" and "Which" can be used to introduce a restrictive clause.
Reply to this