Law Society’s Gazette, January 1971

Letter to the editor: At least legal jargon is clearer than computer languageIt occurs to me that members of our profession might take some heart from the following extract from a recent decision of Judge Edenfield in the Atlanta Division of the US District Court: ‘After hearing the evidence in this case the first finding the court is constrained to make is that, in the computer age, lawyers and courts need no longer feel ashamed or even sensitive about the charge, often made, that they confuse the issue by resort to legal "jargon", law Latin or Norman French.

‘By comparison, the misnomers and industrial shorthand of the computer world make the most esoteric legal writing seem as clear and lucid as the Ten Commandments or the Gettysburg Address; and to add to this Babel, the experts in the computer field, while using exactly the same words, uniformly disagree as to precisely what they mean.

‘Such being the state of the art, the court concludes that before even discussing the contract it should make at least a preliminary attempt at computer definitions.’J D Loveridge, Berks

Law Society’s Gazette, 28 January 1981

Lawyers’ LimericksThe judging of the ‘Lawyers’ Limericks’ Christmas Competition sponsored by Peter Dominic was a difficult task, as the overall standard of the several hundred entries received was very high.

However, after much deliberation the judges have awarded the prize of £100 worth of quality wines to Mr I G Clark of Arlesey, Bedfordshire, for the following entry:

A judge, dining out at the ‘Bell’Found a fly in his Hock, and raised hell.Said the owner in court,When denying the tort‘As a rule, all our flies drink Moselle.’It is hoped that the winner will be entertained to lunch by Peter Dominic, when the wine will be presented.

Law Society’s Gazette, 21 January 1981

Letter to the editor: Help Please! Accident with quick-setting glue – burst tubeWe are at present investigating a possible claim for damages for personal injury resulting from an accident involving the use of a proprietary brand of quick-setting glue, resulting from the evident bursting of its container.

Unfortunately, the hospital at which our client received treatment disposed of the tube and its remaining contents before we received instructions and because, tragically, our client received the contents of the tube in one of her eyes, she is unable to give any description of the same.

We should be most interested to hear from any practitioners who have had the conduct of any other claims involving accidents with quick-setting glue, and in particular, any accidents resulting from the fracture of their containers whilst in use.Sherwin Son & Raper, 48 North Street, Havant, Hants