This week on Wednesday I had the same coffee I always order in a café I frequent – a cappuccino. It was so much better than the identical drink I had in the same café on Monday, probably because it was made by a different and clearly more experienced barista. In fact, making a great cappuccino with just the right taste and froth on the top is quite a complex and detailed art form. For example, a traditional cappuccino should contain 25 exactly milliliters of espresso coffee and 100 milliliters of steam-foamed milk – see this blog on How to Make a Perfect Cappuccino at Home.
This attention to detail is equally relevant and of paramount importance in our professional practices. A doctor needs to know the exact symptoms in order to best treat a patient and must prescribe medicines precisely. Lawyers and commercial advisers have to be especially careful as word smiths drafting opinions or contracts, where the language in the event of a dispute may be interpreted forensically by an exacting judge in a court of law. Precise wording may help avoid litigation in the first place, but if it does occur any ambiguity will be revealed and may work against the interests of their client.
Especially when in these days we can “Google” anything and use chat bots like ChatGPT (the artificial-intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI and launched in November 2022) to seek answers to almost anything, it can be harder to focus on accuracy. The level of "noise" from the plethora of information available on the web on any subject can disguise or mask this essential part of our professional practices. We may, for example, be tempted to jump to a conclusion without drilling down into the details and expressing these clearly in any communication or document. For example, a legal commentary summarising a case is all well and good, but reading the actual judgement will provide a more complete picture.
In fact, for a long time historically lawyers did not use any punctuation at all in case it caused a misinterpretation of the words! Here is a fascinating article Should Lawyers Punctuate which delves into the history of drafting commenting that English-speaking lawyers and judges have wrangled for centuries over the proper role of punctuation in legal documents. As recently as 1989, the United States Supreme Court split 5-4 over the significance of a "capricious comma in the middle of a federal statute". and observing that The Greek and Roman systems were not syntactic; that is, the punctuation marks were not intended to affect meaning and were not based on grammar, as our marks are today. English historical practice was similar: As in the Greek and Roman systems, the punctuation used by English-speakers in the early 17th century was not syntactic. Its function was primarily rhythmic and elocutionary. For example, Simon Daines, an English grammarian writing in 1640, described punctuation marks as having time values, like musical notes and rests. A comma, with a time value of one, "hath its place at the foot of the line and is marked with a femi-circular forme like an halfe Moone. "
We have thankfully moved beyond this, though drafting precision remains essential; for example, the difference between a disjunctive and conjunctive i.e. “and” “or” can be critical. If you say “X and Y” it means both whereas “X or Y” means either. Some drafts people try to avoid this by saying “and/or”, but this can get you into more trouble – see this academic article from the American University Washington College of Law "And/Or" and the Proper Use of Legal Language which comments Other courts have denounced the phrase by labeling it as a “crutch of sloppy thinkers” and “senseless jargon.” A Texas court expressed that a plaintiff should have used either “and” or “or” to express either the conjunctive or disjunctive; because the plaintiff used and/or, however, he “expressed neither.”
The use of numbers in contracts can be particularly vexatious – if a value is expressed in figures alone one misplaced comma can have a dramatic effect. Best practice is to set out numbers in figures and text, although this interesting article Numbers in contracts – 18 best practice rules suggests that A very old-fashion way of expressing numbers in contracts is to write both the number and the figure between brackets (or vice versa). I am not sure I agree with this because certainty should be of paramount importance. I also found this US post on a case Words Prevail Over Conflicting Numbers in Contract: A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision determined that “words” prevailed over “numbers” when they appear next to each other as contract terms in a manner that is inconsistent and contradictory . In other words, if the document states “fifteen (30)” that means fifteen. However, to demonstrate the complexity, this further US blog actually entitled Fifteen (30) disagrees with this conclusion and observes pithily principles of interpretation are frail things. They’re expedient and arbitrary guidelines devised to help courts with the mucky business of making sense of bollixed contract language, and they don’t always work, even if you try to elevate them to the level of scripture!
Changing professions, this short blog Beware The Decimal Point – A Branding Issue observes in a medical context that People have died because 2.0 was written or read as 20.0 and too much medicine or painkiller administered. It also notes that the decimal point is routinely replaced by a comma elsewhere in the world which could cause confusion. This article from the US National Library Of Medication entitled Medication Dispensing Errors And Prevention makes the same point noting that Each year, in the United States alone, 7,000 to 9,000 people die as a result of a medication error…….. For example, when writing digoxin, it should be written as 0.25 mg and not just .25 mg. Again, if the decimal point is not seen, it can easily lead to a tenfold increase in dose.
Of course, it is always advisable to get the big picture right, but as John Foster Dulles, an American diplomat comments "A man's accomplishments in life are the cumulative effect of his attention to detail."
The same is true in sport: basketball coach John Wooden observes "It's the little details that are vital. Little things make big things happen."
And to end on a historical note "Details make perfection, and perfection is not a detail."- Leonardo Da Vinci, Renaissance Italian artist, inventor and scientist.
This attention to detail is equally relevant and of paramount importance in our professional practices. A doctor needs to know the exact symptoms in order to best treat a patient and must prescribe medicines precisely. Lawyers and commercial advisers have to be especially careful as word smiths drafting opinions or contracts, where the language in the event of a dispute may be interpreted forensically by an exacting judge in a court of law. Precise wording may help avoid litigation in the first place, but if it does occur any ambiguity will be revealed and may work against the interests of their client.
Especially when in these days we can “Google” anything and use chat bots like ChatGPT (the artificial-intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI and launched in November 2022) to seek answers to almost anything, it can be harder to focus on accuracy. The level of "noise" from the plethora of information available on the web on any subject can disguise or mask this essential part of our professional practices. We may, for example, be tempted to jump to a conclusion without drilling down into the details and expressing these clearly in any communication or document. For example, a legal commentary summarising a case is all well and good, but reading the actual judgement will provide a more complete picture.
In fact, for a long time historically lawyers did not use any punctuation at all in case it caused a misinterpretation of the words! Here is a fascinating article Should Lawyers Punctuate which delves into the history of drafting commenting that English-speaking lawyers and judges have wrangled for centuries over the proper role of punctuation in legal documents. As recently as 1989, the United States Supreme Court split 5-4 over the significance of a "capricious comma in the middle of a federal statute". and observing that The Greek and Roman systems were not syntactic; that is, the punctuation marks were not intended to affect meaning and were not based on grammar, as our marks are today. English historical practice was similar: As in the Greek and Roman systems, the punctuation used by English-speakers in the early 17th century was not syntactic. Its function was primarily rhythmic and elocutionary. For example, Simon Daines, an English grammarian writing in 1640, described punctuation marks as having time values, like musical notes and rests. A comma, with a time value of one, "hath its place at the foot of the line and is marked with a femi-circular forme like an halfe Moone. "
We have thankfully moved beyond this, though drafting precision remains essential; for example, the difference between a disjunctive and conjunctive i.e. “and” “or” can be critical. If you say “X and Y” it means both whereas “X or Y” means either. Some drafts people try to avoid this by saying “and/or”, but this can get you into more trouble – see this academic article from the American University Washington College of Law "And/Or" and the Proper Use of Legal Language which comments Other courts have denounced the phrase by labeling it as a “crutch of sloppy thinkers” and “senseless jargon.” A Texas court expressed that a plaintiff should have used either “and” or “or” to express either the conjunctive or disjunctive; because the plaintiff used and/or, however, he “expressed neither.”
The use of numbers in contracts can be particularly vexatious – if a value is expressed in figures alone one misplaced comma can have a dramatic effect. Best practice is to set out numbers in figures and text, although this interesting article Numbers in contracts – 18 best practice rules suggests that A very old-fashion way of expressing numbers in contracts is to write both the number and the figure between brackets (or vice versa). I am not sure I agree with this because certainty should be of paramount importance. I also found this US post on a case Words Prevail Over Conflicting Numbers in Contract: A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision determined that “words” prevailed over “numbers” when they appear next to each other as contract terms in a manner that is inconsistent and contradictory . In other words, if the document states “fifteen (30)” that means fifteen. However, to demonstrate the complexity, this further US blog actually entitled Fifteen (30) disagrees with this conclusion and observes pithily principles of interpretation are frail things. They’re expedient and arbitrary guidelines devised to help courts with the mucky business of making sense of bollixed contract language, and they don’t always work, even if you try to elevate them to the level of scripture!
Changing professions, this short blog Beware The Decimal Point – A Branding Issue observes in a medical context that People have died because 2.0 was written or read as 20.0 and too much medicine or painkiller administered. It also notes that the decimal point is routinely replaced by a comma elsewhere in the world which could cause confusion. This article from the US National Library Of Medication entitled Medication Dispensing Errors And Prevention makes the same point noting that Each year, in the United States alone, 7,000 to 9,000 people die as a result of a medication error…….. For example, when writing digoxin, it should be written as 0.25 mg and not just .25 mg. Again, if the decimal point is not seen, it can easily lead to a tenfold increase in dose.
Of course, it is always advisable to get the big picture right, but as John Foster Dulles, an American diplomat comments "A man's accomplishments in life are the cumulative effect of his attention to detail."
The same is true in sport: basketball coach John Wooden observes "It's the little details that are vital. Little things make big things happen."
And to end on a historical note "Details make perfection, and perfection is not a detail."- Leonardo Da Vinci, Renaissance Italian artist, inventor and scientist.
RSS Feed
