Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)/Archive 2013

Cleanup
Sometimes it feels like certain articles should just be blown up and started anew. I think this one might qualify. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Terms and Conditions
The very first example is causing me problems.

In a contract, a "term" is any provision that sets out how something is to be dealt with, or what will apply in a specific situation, or even simply describes the subject matter of the contract. It might be as simple as "The Buyer buys and the Seller sells 10,000 widgets", or a covenant by one party eg. "the Licensee will take all reasonable steps in maintaining the security of the premises", or a mutually agreed statement confirming a procedure eg. "Any complaint can only be considered if submitted in writing within one month of the end of the application".

A "condition" might impose limitations on an existing term, or set out specific circumstances which must exist for that term to apply. A "condition precedent" is one which has to be satisfied prior to the term applying eg. "If the Tenant pays the insurance premium by the due date the Landlord covenants to effect such insurance". A "condition subsequent" is a condition which, if satisfied after the term to which it applies, ends or changes the application of that term eg. "If the Tenant becomes bankrupt... the Landlord's obligation to insure shall terminate forthwith".

Furthermore, in its other, legal sense, a "condition" has a specific legal meaning as compared to to a "warranty". A condition of a contract (as opposed to a condition applying to a term) is a term which is considered fundamental to the proper performance of that contract. As a general common law rule (subject always to specific differences across jurisdictions and statutory modifications) the innocent party can treat the contract as having been rescinded. On the other hand, breach of a warranty entitles the other party to damages but does not entitle rescission.

So for example, if I enter into a contract to purchase a Ferrari, it would be reasonable to expect that receiving a Ferrari would be a condition. It would (or should) not be open to the seller to deliver (say) a Porsche and simply offer a discount by way of compensation. However, if I order a Ferrari, to arrive on June 1st, the delivery of that car on June 1st might likely only be a warranty, such that if delivered late (or even early) the buyer cannot cancel the contract, but can seek compensation for any specific loss caused by the change to the delivery date.

Even though some "terms" in a contract can reworded so as to form a "condition" (taking the earlier example, one might say "If the applicant does not submit its complaint in writing by the end of one month of the end of the application, such complaint shall not be valid", there may be other terms that cannot be, and are not intended to be, such as notice provisions (eg. The customer is hereby notified that all items described as "gold" are gold plated".)

Therefore, "Terms" and "Conditions" are not the same, and I think this is not a valid example of a tautology. Tanel76 (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WHAT
i added some half arsed comments about how OBVIOUSLY wrong this completely unsourced article is, and yes i DO have time to find some sources through google books if you want to argue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.84.85 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is gibberish. It goes completely off the rails about half way in. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger (Pleonasm)
To me pleonasm and tautology seem to be the same thing. Therefore I think the terms should be in the same article. Spannerjam 09:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The matter covered in page Pleonasm is unnecessary extra words like "two different species", which is not the same as is discussed in article Tautology. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The distinction between those two terms is not clear on either page. --Spannerjam 12:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The distinction should be made more clear then, rather than merge because you can't see the distinction at the moment.--Atlan (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this discussion (which has been open for more than six months) with the outcome that there is no consensus to implement the proposed merger at this time. If you feel strongly that a merger is warranted, please start a new proposal. — Jaydiem (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)