 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Usage of up to date (no hyphens)
"The buyer may sell the goods, provided he has paid all sums due to the seller up to date". The usual meaning of "up-to-date" is "modern, current". In the above sentence, however, does "up to date" refer to "by the date of selling the goods"? As a side note, how idiomatic does the word "sums" look like here? Is it naturally understood as "sums of money" or should "amounts" be used instead? Fiance <rentgenas11@yahoo.com> had it: > "The buyer may sell the goods, provided he has paid all sums due to the > seller up to date". > > The usual meaning of "up-to-date" is "modern, current". In the above > sentence, however, does "up to date" refer to "by the date of selling > the goods"? It means "up to this moment in time". E.g. "My mortgage payments are always up to date". "Date" can, in limited circumstances, mean "now", as in "To date, she has not paid her bill". > As a side note, how idiomatic does the word "sums" look like here? Is > it naturally understood as "sums of money" or should "amounts" be used > instead? The plural "sums" sounds old fashioned and legalistic, as though it had come from a Victorian contract. And it's too complex for a simple rule. I suggest "The buyer may sell the goods once he has paid for them" - does that mean what you intended?  SignatureDavid ===== The the Omrud entity posted thusly: >Fiance <rentgenas11@yahoo.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It means "up to this moment in time". I agree, but ... > E.g. "My mortgage payments are always up to date". is a different animal altogether, being the "current" sense of the word. > Fiance <rentgenas11@yahoo.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It means "up to this moment in time"... Or, more specifically, "up to the time at which the buyer sells the goods" (at least, that's what I assume it must mean...) >Fiance <rentgenas11@yahoo.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >simple rule. I suggest "The buyer may sell the goods once he has >paid for them" - does that mean what you intended? I'm not a lawyer, but that's probably not the same thing. "All sums due to the seller up to date" could include money due to the seller that wasn't direct payment for the goods in question, and might even be read to include any money owed, whether part of the same transaction or not. Cheers - Ian > "The buyer may sell the goods, provided he has paid all sums due to the > seller up to date". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it naturally understood as "sums of money" or should "amounts" be used > instead? People who write legally binding language, including (perhaps especially) attorneys tend to a sort of artificial, pseudo-Victorian bombast that often disguises the intended meaning (sometimes on purpose, but more commonly through inadvertence). "Sums" is acceptable in this concept, though "monies" (a word rarely found outside legal documents) is arguably more concrete. The "date" is, I would say, unclear: up to the time that the document containing those words is executed, or up to the moment of the sale? (But the _form_, "up to date" is common enough, if infelicitous.) >> "The buyer may sell the goods, provided he has paid all sums due to the >> seller up to date". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > executed, or up to the moment of the sale? (But the _form_, "up to > date" is common enough, if infelicitous.) In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. Regards Jonathan > In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such > sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. But that's the crux: we are all reduced to saying things like "I think", whereas a legal document should leave absolutely no room for alternative possible interpretations. > > In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such > > sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. > > But that's the crux: we are all reduced to saying things like "I > think", whereas a legal document should leave absolutely no room for > alternative possible interpretations. Legal people have a habit of using strange constructions that are supposedly unambiguous, but which leave most ordinary people uncertain as to their meaning. Whether this is intentional or not I have never been sure. >> > In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such >> > sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >supposedly unambiguous, but which leave most ordinary people uncertain >as to their meaning. The same can be said of programmers. >Whether this is intentional or not I have never >been sure. Theory says that once a lawyers' phrasing has acquired an established judicially approved meaning, it is safe to use henceforth when that meaning is desired; and there's an unspoken fear that a variant phrasing may then be deemed to mean something different, on the grounds that the draftsman would have used the established version if that's what he'd meant. The practice also has the incidental effect of preserving a need for lawyers. I don't believe any of that, of course. SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! >> > In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such >> > sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >as to their meaning. Whether this is intentional or not I have never >been sure. I'd have to consult a lawyer to know, but perhaps they find it strange that we normal people have come to accept ambiguity in our writing. SignatureCharles Riggs >> In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such >> sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. > > But that's the crux: we are all reduced to saying things like "I > think", whereas a legal document should leave absolutely no room for > alternative possible interpretations. Agreed - and I'm a lawyer. To be fair, I don't think (there I go again) that the original was ambiguous. Logically, "to date" could only mean one of two things - the date of the original agreement or the date of sale - but since the first of those would be meaningless (he'd be bound to be up to date with payments on day one, wouldn't he?) the date of sale is clearly indicated. Regards Jonathan [...] > To be fair, I don't think (there I go again) that the original was > ambiguous. Logically, "to date" could only mean one of two things - the > date of the original agreement or the date of sale - but since the first > of those would be meaningless (he'd be bound to be up to date with > payments on day one, wouldn't he?) the date of sale is clearly indicated. Not if this were an amendment or addition to a prior agreement. >> In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such >> sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. > >But that's the crux: we are all reduced to saying things like "I >think", whereas a legal document should leave absolutely no room for >alternative possible interpretations. Ideally, perhaps, but I have run into a lot of legal documents that seem to be deliberately vague. Perhaps those drawing the papers up are trying to hoodwink the other party. For example, I have an NDA on my desk this morning that prattles on about "Confidential Information" (capitalized) for a couple pages (as you might expect), and demands to have such information maintained secret for a decade, yet nowhere defines what exactly is "Confidential Information" and what is not. In another section they require the right to demand at any time that all information and document in any form related to the project be turned over to them. That would seem to conflict with the need to keep tax records. Also, if one became involved in litigation with respect to the contract, and the information has already been requested and turned over, there would be no way to present any documents whatsoever in one's own defense. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com [...] > >But that's the crux: we are all reduced to saying things like "I > >think", whereas a legal document should leave absolutely no room for > >alternative possible interpretations. > > Ideally, perhaps, but I have run into a lot of legal documents that > seem to be deliberately vague. . . . An attorney drafting a contract has two paramount concerns: first, to induce an artificial paranoia that conceives virtually every possible contingency, no matter how bizarre; second, to include provisions that deal with each of those contingencies in utterly unequivocal language. That they often fail in the second reflects only the fact that many of them are no better schooled in English than most people these days, even college graduates. >>>In the original sentence, I think it means "up to the date of such >>>sale", and that the OP's supposition is correct. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > seem to be deliberately vague. Perhaps those drawing the papers up are > trying to hoodwink the other party. I thought one reason English took over from French as the language of diplomacy was because it is so much easier to be vague and misleading in English. SignatureRob Bannister |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.