Ruizo 27 are indispensable linguistic devices which bring in precision, clarity, unambiguity and all-inclusiveness and so on; but to others, it is a mere ploy to promote solidarity between the members of the specialist community and to keep non-specialists at a respectable distance. The legislative language of the law, in some perspectives, has been regarded as nothing more than pure linguistic nonsense bringing into professional discourse pomposity, verbosity, flabbiness and circumlocution (Gibbons 136). Legislative language is highly impersonal and de-contextualized, the general function of which is directive, to impose obligations and to confer rights. As legal draftsmen are well aware of the age-old human capacity to wriggle out of obligations and to stretch rights to often unexpected limits, in order to guard against these eventualities, they attempt to define their model world of obligations and rights, permissions and prohibitions, as precisely, clearly and unambiguously as words will permit. Another factor which further complicates their tasks is that laws generally deal with a universe of human behavior, which is unrestricted in the sense that it is impossible to predict exactly what may happen within it. Nevertheless, the attempt to refer to every conceivable contingency within their model world and this gives the legislative writing the all-inclusive quality of it. However, the laws are also made to apply to real life situation and are invariably interpreted in the context of a particular dispute, which leads to the drafter’s need to strike a balance and achieve the dual characteristic of clarity, precision and unambiguity on the one hand, and the all-inclusiveness on the other hand. The cumulative sense of legislation of laws adds to the challenge of drafting a law that has to harmonize itself with all the other laws that already exist before it, in the words of Caldwell: Very rarely is a new legislative provision entirely freestanding… it is part of a jigsaw puzzle… in passing a new provision you are merely bringing one more piece and so you have to acknowledge that what you are about to do may affect some other bit of the massive statute book (Reported in Gibbons, 1994: 151). The language being the primary vehicle of legislative intent in the law, a close, careful and critical consideration of the language use is of great importance, in order not only to understand rights and obligations provided for in the law, but also to equip drafters with an approach or framework to drafting provisions and clauses that linguistically accurately embody the thought behind them, in order to avoid losing the spirit of the law in a heap of confusing and misleading legalese. From the above mentioned premise of the importance of language