Evaluate UK Statute Modal Verbs
Budget / Salary$30–250
TypeFreelance project
LocationRemote
Posted1 hour ago
I have a set of candidate rules on when shall, must, may and unless carry obligation, permission, prohibition or mere legal effect in UK statutory text. Each rule cites the provision it was drawn from, and the wording at that place is reproduced beside it.
What I need is independent judgement, rule by rule — not a rewrite.
For each rule you will choose one of five values and give a one-line reason:
Correct — holds as stated, and the cited wording supports it.
Correct with a qualification — right, but cannot stand unqualified.
Correct but the citation does not support it — the rule is sound, the cited provision does not establish it.
Open question — genuinely unsettled in UK practice.
Wrong — does not hold as stated.
The third value matters most to me. A rule may be sound while the provision cited fails to carry it, and I need those two findings kept apart.
Each rule also claims a discriminator — something visible in the text that identifies the function. Test that claim. If it rests on context or on the drafter's intention rather than on the words, say so.
Deliverable: the spreadsheet returned with two columns filled — your value and your one-line reason. No report, no alternative wording. Where you answer Wrong or citation does not support, give the authority you rely on, with a pinpoint reference. Elsewhere a single line is enough.
Open question, Wrong and citation does not support are paid exactly as Correct. I am not buying agreement.
To enter: do not attempt the material. Answer the screening question below, and state briefly your practice in legislative drafting or statutory interpretation.
Screening question. A provision reads: "The Authority shall publish the register, and shall not disclose personal data contained in it unless required by law."
Take the two occurrences of shall and the one unless. What in the text itself — not in your sense of the meaning — tells you what function each shall carries? And what exactly does the unless lift: the whole prohibition, or only part of it? If the text does not settle a point, say so and say why.
What I need is independent judgement, rule by rule — not a rewrite.
For each rule you will choose one of five values and give a one-line reason:
Correct — holds as stated, and the cited wording supports it.
Correct with a qualification — right, but cannot stand unqualified.
Correct but the citation does not support it — the rule is sound, the cited provision does not establish it.
Open question — genuinely unsettled in UK practice.
Wrong — does not hold as stated.
The third value matters most to me. A rule may be sound while the provision cited fails to carry it, and I need those two findings kept apart.
Each rule also claims a discriminator — something visible in the text that identifies the function. Test that claim. If it rests on context or on the drafter's intention rather than on the words, say so.
Deliverable: the spreadsheet returned with two columns filled — your value and your one-line reason. No report, no alternative wording. Where you answer Wrong or citation does not support, give the authority you rely on, with a pinpoint reference. Elsewhere a single line is enough.
Open question, Wrong and citation does not support are paid exactly as Correct. I am not buying agreement.
To enter: do not attempt the material. Answer the screening question below, and state briefly your practice in legislative drafting or statutory interpretation.
Screening question. A provision reads: "The Authority shall publish the register, and shall not disclose personal data contained in it unless required by law."
Take the two occurrences of shall and the one unless. What in the text itself — not in your sense of the meaning — tells you what function each shall carries? And what exactly does the unless lift: the whole prohibition, or only part of it? If the text does not settle a point, say so and say why.
Apply on Freelancer →
Project sourced from Freelancer.com. Applications happen directly on the original platform — we never collect your data.