I’d like to write an article about English-language contract drafting for civil-law jurisdictions. It’s pretty much the only blank spot on my particular map.
But I’d need a co-author. They’d have to do the bulk of the research. We’d devise the outline together, and we’d write it together. I’m looking for someone who’s enthusiastic, isn’t a bullshitter, has a track record of scholarship, and approves of my work. And they should be based in Europe. If you’d like to be considered, contact me.
I’ve previously attempted to find a civil-law co-author for purposes of a subject that would might come up in this proposed article, namely comparing obligations de résultats and de moyens with efforts (or endeavours) provisions used in common-law jurisdictions. I failed to find anyone, but that’s not a reflection on civil-law lawyers. Instead, it just means that few people have the time, interest, or aptitude for what I do. That’s why instead of working through contacts I’m now doing this open casting call.
If you are ever looking for a co-author in Latin America, let me know. I know a lot of lawyers that would line up to work with you, including me!
I admire your work (and your patience and persistence in doing it) but I must say shame on you for stooping to the use of vulgarities to express yourself in a public forum.
You mean “bullshitter”? Sorry, but it didn’t cross my mind that anyone would have a problem with that. The tone of this blog is casual, so I can’t promise that I won’t be similarly uncouth in the future.
I don’t find the term offensive. It is a very specific term and I think conveys a particular sense of the person being described. (as a characteristic that Mr. Adams does not want in a co-author) I don’t find “shit” to be a very vulgar term and certainly in many contexts less pretentious than feces. I am trying to think of a word that might be used instead. maybe is a “straight shooter” although there are a few persons who may find the imagery too violent. blow hard? Or Mr. Adams could say he would prefer someone who does not use superficially verbose language selection to cover for a lack of knowledge. Although that seems pretentious and superficially verbose.
I’m always willing to consider suggestions on matters of tone. For example, I’ve recently given further thought to gender-neutral use of “guys”. That’s something a seminar participant objected to a couple of years ago, and I might be coming round to her point of view.
Gender isn’t the only problem with “guys”. Another is respect.
Be honest: how easy are you with a young restaurant hostess’s saying to an elderly couple, “As soon as we clear a table, I can seat you guys”?
But back to the gender issue: if we mustn’t say “gals”, isn’t it sexist to call everyone by its male counterpart, as in “everyone should bring *his* own laptop”?
Casual speech is fine in casual settings.
“their own laptop” now has some momentum.