Enjoin, what?

Some English words have two opposite meanings depending on another word associated with it. Failing to use the correct pair will result in ambiguity. And this problem has crept into some legal literature including even Supreme Court decisions.

Take the word enjoin, for example. This is what Meriam Webster online dictionary says:

• : to direct or order (someone) to do something: to prevent (someone) from doing something; especially : to give a legal order preventing (someone) from doing something

Two opposing meanings for the same word.

So what did Sundiang and Aquino mean here on page 392 of their book Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition?

Was the applicant prohibiting or urging the payment?

To prevent any ambiguity here's the correct pairing of words according to Black's Law Dictionary:

As for the SC decision you should see the case referred to by the book.

Saturday typos, 19 March 2016

From the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Jose R. Sundiang Sr. and Timoteo B. Aquino:

Page 380,

Page 388,

Page 389,

Saturday typos, 12 March 2016

I am rereading Special Proceedings, A Foresight to the Bar Exam, 2011 Edition by Gemy Lito L. Festin for our Remedial Law review under Judge Mein Paredes. Here's a harvest of more typos for the weekend:

Page 88

Page 92,

Page 94,

Page 100,

Page 102,

No posting this weekend.

Been very busy this week. Next week are the finals and mock bars. So no posting unless something very important crops up.

Busy means studying and watching videos!

I do have a lot to post but can't decide which to sacrifice: studying or watching?

The pitfall of quoting a decision which quotes a decision

On pages 219 and 220 of the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Sundiang Jr. and Aquino we have this problem  (pasted together) posed by the authors :

At the beginning we see that IAI, Inc., through LG, sold shares to AI, Inc. But towards the end of the paragraph it appears that LG was authorized to purchase the shares, not sell them. What gives?

The book based the problem on Inter-Asia Investment Industries, Inc. vs CA, GR 125778, June 10, 2003. The switch from sale to purchase happened when toward the end of the problem the authors grafted the earlier decision quoted by SC in Inter-Asia. See Inter-Asia to see how the switch happened. Just a hint: it was really a sale.

This, I believe, is a pitfall for any author who tries to get a more recent decision for the sake of being more updated but eventually has to quote a precedent decision contained in the recent one.

This befell another book which I discussed here.

Saturday typos, 27 February 2016

From the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Jose R. Sundiang, Sr. and Timoteo B. Aquino:

Page 263,

Page 275,

Page 277,

Page 280,

Page 281,

Recommended reading for martial law anniversary

PLDT was still spotty yesterday, so no posting!

In the meantime here's recommended share for those who pined for the martial law time under Marcos and the millennials who think that we need a dictator to bring development to our country.
Wrong!!!!!!!

http://joeam.com/2016/02/22/a-message-to-those-who-did-not-experience-ferdinand-marcos-and-benigno-aquino-jr/

Saturday typos, 20 February 2016

No postings last weekend due to intermittent PLDT connection.

For today we have these  items from the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition  by Jose R. Sundiang, Sr. and Timoteo B. Aquino.

On page 189,

Page 193,

See the decision here for the correct word.

Page 195,

When result resulted from resulting

From page 453 and 454 of the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Jose R. Sundiang, Sr. and Timoteo B. Aquino:

We have a few quibbles here. First, too many "results" in one sentence. The SC ruling was parsimonious with only one.

The appellate court ruled, gathered from the testimonies and sworn marine protests of the respective vessel masters of Limar I and MT Iron Eagle, that there was no way by which the barge’s or the tugboat’s crew could have prevented the sinking of Limar I. The vessel was suddenly tossed by waves of extraordinary height of six (6) to eight (8) feet and buffeted by strong winds of 1.5 knots resulting in the entry of water into the barge’s hatches. The official Certificate of Inspection of the barge issued by the Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line Certificate would attest to the seaworthiness of Limar I and should strengthen the factual findings of the appellate court.

Second, my professor in Legal Writing, Atty. Gallardo A. Escobar, Jr., would have added that there is a dangling modifier here. It would seem that the fortuitous event resulted from the barge being tossed by waves.

Anyone in the class would have revised it this way:

The court ruled that the sinking of the barge towed by the tugboat was a result of a fortuitous event. The barge was suddenly tossed by waves of extraordinary height and buffeted by strong winds causing the entry of water through the barge's hatches.

Notice that instead of "into" the revision used "through" which is more precise. The hatch of a barge serves as an entrance into its hold. Technically, the water entered into the hold through the hatch.

Saturday typos, 6 Feb 2016

From the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Jose R. Sundiang, Sr. and Timoteo B. Aquino:

Page 176,

Page 489,

Should be: ...expenses occasioned by ...

Page 494,