Unconscionable (pronounced un-kno-shon-ible)
(1) Not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.
(2) Not in accordance with what is just or reasonable:
(3) Excessive; extortionate, imprudent or unreasonable
1560s: The construct was un- + conscionable. The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-. It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- & on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-. It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-). Conscionable was from the Middle English conscions (the third-person singular simple present indicative form of conscion), an obsolete variant of conscience, + -able. The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- or -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives. Conscience was from the Middle English conscience, from the Old French conscience, from the Latin conscientia (knowledge within oneself), from consciens, present participle of conscire (to know, to be conscious (of wrong)), the construct being com- (together) + scire (to know). The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- of -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives. Unconscionable is an adjedtive, unconscionableness is a noun and unconscionably is an adverb; the noun plural is unconscionabilities.
Like disgruntled, unconscionable is one of those strange words in English where the derivation has flourished while the source word is effective extinct. That said, English is defined and constructed by being used and the word conscionable (in accordance with conscience; defensible; proper) remains good English; it has merely faded from use and is described by some dictionaries as obsolete, archaic or at least, since the eighteenth century, a fossilized form of its surviving negative: unconscionable. Conscionable in the 1540s meant "having a conscience", the meaning expanding by the 1580s to refer to actions "consonant with right or duty" and by the 1640s to persons, "governed by conscience". The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes both conscious & conscioned were probably popular formations from conscion, taken as a singular of conscien-ce by a misapprehension of the "s" sound as a plural inflection. The related form was (and is) conscionably.
Unconscionability in the law
Unconscionability is a legal doctrine (most often applied in contact law) which permits courts to strike-out or write-down clauses or agreements which are unduly harsh or so grossly unfair that that it would offend legal principles for them to be enforced. When a court uses the word "unconscionable" to describe conduct, it means the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience as defined in law; it makes no judgment about whether they are at variance with other ethical constructs (although there will often be overlap). In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit. If need be, entire contracts can be set-aside or declared void, even if they are otherwise constructed wholly in conformity with the rules of contract. A contract therefore can be found to be "legal" yet still be voided because it's held to be unconscionable in the same way a contract (for example an agreement between two parties in which one is paid to murder a third part can be held to be a "legal contract" yet be declared "void for illegality".
Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.
Unconscionability is determined by examining the
circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances may include the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the
parties and the doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the
integrity of the judicial system to enforce a contracts. At law, as in moral theology, the concept of unconscionability
is probably absolute; something is either unconscionable or not. However, cases are considered on their merits
and the circumstances in which the unconscionable arose might color the detail
of a judge’s verdict.
The Most Noble Order of the Garter, an order of chivalry and the senior order of knighthood in the UK’s honors system, was founded by Edward III (1312–1377; King of England 1327-1377). Appointments are exclusively in the gift of the sovereign and limited to two dozen living members (apart from royal appointees). The Garter was of great significance to Charles II (1630–1685; King of Scotland 1649-1651, King of Scotland, England and Ireland 1660-1685) as it had been his father, Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) who awarded it as something symbolic of the binding tie with his favored aristocrats. For Charles II, as the only dignity he was able to confer upon his adherents while in exile during the interregnum (1649-1660), it was a potent symbol, proof the King still retained the mystique and the power of monarchy. Charles II suffered a sudden apoplectic fit on the morning of 2 February 1685 and his doctors expected him to have the decency to die within the hour. Instead he lingered another four days before expiring and just before, he apologised to those around him, his last words being: “You must pardon me, gentlemen, for being a most unconscionable time a-dying.” In this, as in many other things, he was unlike his father Charles I, who died suddenly, executed by having his head cut off.
No comments:
Post a Comment