Blog
The Simplified blog
From the Plain English Campaign's 'hall of shame'
Frances Gordon | 26 December 2007 | 21:54Each year, the Plain English Campaign publishes examples of gobbledegook. Here are two from the 2007 'hall of shame' (Source: BBC News, 11 December 2007):
BAA sign at Gatwick airport:
Original: "Passenger shoe repatriation area only"
Plain English Campaign translation: Get your shoes back here.
BAA removed the sign on Monday and gave this statement: "We are in the business of repatriation at Gatwick Airport, admittedly more often through arriving passengers than repatriating shoes."
Terms and conditions on Fastway Courier website:
Original: "The Carrier shall not be liable for injury or damage to or destruction or loss of the Goods or any other property arising out of or incidental to or in connection with or occurring during the provision of the Services or for the mis-delivery or non-delivery of the Goods and whether or not caused or contributed to by the default (including negligence) of the Carrier or any agent, servant or officer of the Carrier or any other person entitled to the benefit of these conditions."
Plain English Campaign translation: If anything happens, it's not our fault.
I find rewrites like the one above are not sufficiently specific.
I agree with you Frances. Neither of these rewrites are particularly helpful. In the first, I could see the rewrite in a joke book of signs: how badly must your shoes have behaved to warrant such revenge?
In the second, the disclaimer is so vague I doubt it would stand up if challenged in court. To make the rewrite stronger, one would have to add the intention behind the disclaimer: ie. the carrier does not bear the risk for loss or damage to goods entrusted to it for delivery. The word 'goods' would presumably have been defined elsewhere. It is also not responsible for causing damage to other property while delivering the goods (for example, cracking your kitchen tiling when delivering a washing machine). This has been overlooked in the rewrite. The current rewrite does not address the goods or a negative event happening to them. At best, the rewrite could say, 'If anything bad happens to the goods or any other property, it's not our fault'.
I am not sure this will remedy the problems though. In my attempt at a rewrite below, I have also assumed that Services would be defined in the contract. So consider:
'While providing these Services to you, we are not responsible for:
- any loss or damage to the Goods;
- any loss or damage to other property.
We are not responsible even if we caused the loss or damage through our own action.'
In the definition of 'we' I would include the agents listed in the original so it is not necessary to keep repeating them.
It is interesting that the original does not deny responsibility for damage or loss to a person. So if they dropped a washing machine on your foot, they would be responsible for the medical costs.
In the second, the disclaimer is so vague I doubt it would stand up if challenged in court. To make the rewrite stronger, one would have to add the intention behind the disclaimer: ie. the carrier does not bear the risk for loss or damage to goods entrusted to it for delivery. The word 'goods' would presumably have been defined elsewhere. It is also not responsible for causing damage to other property while delivering the goods (for example, cracking your kitchen tiling when delivering a washing machine). This has been overlooked in the rewrite. The current rewrite does not address the goods or a negative event happening to them. At best, the rewrite could say, 'If anything bad happens to the goods or any other property, it's not our fault'.
I am not sure this will remedy the problems though. In my attempt at a rewrite below, I have also assumed that Services would be defined in the contract. So consider:
'While providing these Services to you, we are not responsible for:
- any loss or damage to the Goods;
- any loss or damage to other property.
We are not responsible even if we caused the loss or damage through our own action.'
In the definition of 'we' I would include the agents listed in the original so it is not necessary to keep repeating them.
It is interesting that the original does not deny responsibility for damage or loss to a person. So if they dropped a washing machine on your foot, they would be responsible for the medical costs.
All content © Simplified 2006/7 | Legal
Vague disclaimer
Candice Burt | 27 December 2007 | 08:51