Question Author
God,I hope not, BM ! £900 an hour, I mean. That's why I check everything before they let it out of the office. I do resent paying them for me to proof read and correct their efforts though. That one is so elementary an error. I did say that it was easy for them; all they have to do, nearly 100 per cent of the time, is take a precedent off their in-house computer and fill in the names. They agreed that that was essentially true.
Their precedent writer/ computer, had no knowledge of the the law of interpretation either; it had such gems as 'reference to male shall be taken as including the female' but,amusingly, without adding 'unless the context otherwise requires'. Unnecessarily included but, as put, defective; to a purist anyway; but I let that pass, though I did comment.
The trouble is that , with such things as overage clauses [I used 'extra payment' to make the post comprehensible], they are often going 'off piste' to deal with the peculiar circumstances of the individual case,as here, and having to think for themselves. This thought does not include working out the possible dangers of the words they use. It does to us, but we spend, or have spent, our whole lives sorting out what happens when something goes wrong and we can see trouble coming from a long way off.