> Just as "magic spells" use special rhymes and archaic terms to signal their power, the convoluted language of legalese acts to convey a sense of authority, they conclude.
This is definitely the case. I've modified NDAs (from our lawyers or other parties') and have written plenty of business contracts and I find some people are uncomfortable with them unless you wrap them in a "whereas" preamble and put some pointless nonsense like "The parties agree that time is of the essence in this agreement". What a pointless waste of time.
"time is of the essence" is more of an example of jargon, which is something different from the drafting style. It's true that it's not particularly accessible, but it's useful because it captures a specific technical meaning in a short phrase. (Specifically, 'time is of the essence' means that any timelines specified in the contract are strict: missing by even a few seconds is a breach even if the delay is not material).
Exactly, contracts are rife with this for no good reason.
I was filing some old leases and realized they were headered with "WITNESSETH" (in all caps because you cannot properly invoke its power otherwise), and thought "huh, is that a real word or Ye Olde Faux Englishe?" and it was a real word, but a different part of speech. It's not a command, it's a third-person singular verb floating around as a remnant of something like "this document witnesseth that...".
no, that example shows a complete lack of understanding of an important phrase.. there are lots of examples of language in contracts that are verbose or purposefully confusing, but that is not one of them.. IANAL usa
This is definitely the case. I've modified NDAs (from our lawyers or other parties') and have written plenty of business contracts and I find some people are uncomfortable with them unless you wrap them in a "whereas" preamble and put some pointless nonsense like "The parties agree that time is of the essence in this agreement". What a pointless waste of time.