Are the words used in court documents rhetoric ?

Red Hare

Are the words used in court documents just rhetoric?
Or do the words used in court documents actually mean what they say?
If not then why not?

Examples

" Take Notice that on X day the X day of Month 2021 at the hour of 11 O'Clock in the forenoon.... " - Am I correct in saying that the hours stated is just wishful or indicative ? if I am correct, then why put down an hour or a forenoon - why not say time to be confirmed - if that is what is actually meant.

"TAKE NOTICE that unless you do enter an Appearance you will be held to have admitted the said claim and application may be made to the Court in your absence for the orders sought here" - yet this does not mean than the Court or the Plaintiff or anyone will hold the defendants to have admitted the said claim? So " you will be is" - it is just rhetoric?

"So much of this statement as relates to my own acts and deeds is true, and so much of it as relates to the acts and deeds of any and every other person I believe to be true" - If only "So much of it is true" what about the rest of it ? why not "All of it is true" . Is this not just obfuscation?

Peregrinus

Red Hare wrote: »

" Take Notice that on X day the X day of Month 2021 at the hour of 11 O'Clock in the forenoon.... " - Am I correct in saying that the hours stated is just wishful or indicative ?

It depend on what follows where you have put the ellipsis, obviously. That kind of statement is the kind of thing that might preceded information about when the court will be sitting to deal with the matter and the information will normally be correct; the court sitting at which this matter will be dealt with will be at 11 am. But of course this won’t be the only matter to be dealt with at that sitting, and it won’t necessarily be the first matter to be dealt with. So the court sitting to deal with this matter will begin at 11 am, but it may not actually be dealt with at 11 am.

Red Hare wrote: »

"TAKE NOTICE that unless you do enter an Appearance you will be held to have admitted the said claim and application may be made to the Court in your absence for the orders sought here" - yet this does not mean than the Court or the Plaintiff or anyone will hold the defendants to have admitted the said claim? So " you will be is" - it is just rhetoric?

There’s a difference between admitting something, and be taken to have admitted it, or held to have admitted it, or being treated as if you had admitted it. You can be held to have admitted something if you haven’t admitted it, or even if you have explicitly denied it. Telling people “if you don’t enter an appearance you will have admitted the claim” might confuse them, since they no perfectly well they haven’t admitted it, or they might think they can avoid the effect of this by explicitly denying it. Telling them that if they don’t enter an appearance they will be treated as if they had amitted the the claim gives them a clearer and more accurate picture of the consequences of not entering an appearance.

Red Hare wrote: »

"So much of this statement as relates to my own acts and deeds is true, and so much of it as relates to the acts and deeds of any and every other person I believe to be true" - If only "So much of it is true" what about the rest of it ? why not "All of it is true" . Is this not just obfuscation?

Again, this is strictly accurate. I can only give first-hand evidence of thing that I have first-hand knowledge of. If I did act X then I can testify that “I did act X”. But if Red Hare did act X and (I wasn’t there to see him do it) the most that I can say is that I believe that Red Hare did act X. My belief might be incorrect - I might have been misinformed - so I can’t say that it is true; only that I believe it to be true.

The language may be excessive and it may be archaic and it may be persnickety, but it's not rhetorical; it all means something, and it's there for a reason.

ohnonotgmail

Red Hare wrote: »

Are the words used in court documents just rhetoric?
Or do the words used in court documents actually mean what they say?
If not then why not?

Examples


"So much of this statement as relates to my own acts and deeds is true, and so much of it as relates to the acts and deeds of any and every other person I believe to be true" - If only "So much of it is true" what about the rest of it ? why not "All of it is true" [/I]. Is this not just obfuscation?

it is not obfuscation it is written clearly if not in entirely everyday language. if you substitute "so much of" with "the parts of" it probably reads a little easier.

The parts of this statement as relates to my own acts and deeds is true, and the parts of it as relates to the acts and deeds of any and every other person I believe to be true.

Red Hare

Thanks Peregrinus, you me thinking now in a more positive way!

Red Hare

That Ohnonotgmail " the parts of " makes it more straight forward and makes it seem more sincere and less rhetorical