PERFECTING THE LANGUAGE OF LAW: VERB PATTERNS (2)

Read the information above and complete the following sentences using a verb from the list below in its correct form. If a sentence requires an object this is provided in brackets.

(a) represent (b) contact (c) grant (d) apply (e) issue (f) raise (g) seek (h) change 1. I would advise (1) ….. (him) for the promotion as he has the necessary experience. 2. Please remind (2) ….. (me) the claimant’s lawyer before 5pm today. 3. You must (3) ….. a grievance with your employer before starting legal action for discrimination. 4. We were successful in convincing (4) ….. (the judge) an injunction. 5. We agree (5) ….. the defendant in this case in which the claimant is alleging clinical negligence. 6. You should always (6) ….. legal advice before setting up in partnership. 7. He has threatened (7) ….. solicitors if we do not convince the other party to reduce the price. 8. The directors agreed they would (8) ….. new shares in order to raise capital. VERBS AND PREPOSITIONS Some verbs are commonly followed by a preposition. They are called ‘dependent prepositions’ and they are followed by either another verb or a noun. When they are followed by another verb that verb must always take an -ing form. For example, the verb ‘concentrate’ must be followed by the preposition ‘on’. If the preposition in this example is followed by another verb it would be accurate to say, ‘I am concentrating on finishing this document’. Some verbs are followed by an object before the preposition, for example, ‘to accuse someone of having breached a contract’.

Verb+preposition+-ing form or noun phrase admit to specialise in apologise to/for ask for insist on prohibit from look for agree on/with/to respond to refer to Verb+object+preposition+(verb+ing or noun) accuse someone of prevent someone from ask someone for thank someone for charge someone with provide someone with warn someone about explain something to

Read the information about verbs and prepositions opposite and above, and rewrite each sentence below without changing the meaning. A verb is provided to help you. You may need to add an object to the alternative sentence. 1. I am sorry that I was late to this morning’s meeting. OR I (1) ….. (be) late to this morning’s meeting.

2. My employer wouldn’t allow me to go to Trade Union meetings, which is a breach of the law. OR My employer (2) ….. (attend) Trade Union meetings, which is a breach of the law.

3. The claimant refused to drop his case even though he had no chance of success. OR The claimant (3) ….. (proceed) with his case even though he had no chance of success.

4. The partners alleged she had withdrawn the cash from the bank without their knowledge. OR The partners (4) ….. (withdraw) the cash from the bank without their knowledge.

5. My boss is an expert in acting for sole traders involved in litigation with the tax authorities. OR My boss (5) ….. (defend) sole traders involved in litigation with the tax authorities.

Read the passage below which is about a case involving an alleged infringement of copyright. Correct the underlined mistakes. These mistakes may be an incorrect word, a word in its incorrect form, an extra word or a missing word.

A 2017 copyright case involving singer Ed Sheeran centred around one of his compositions, a song named ‘Photograph’. The facts were that songwriters Thomas Leonard and Martin Harrington (1) accused Sheeran of to copy note-for-note a song named ‘Amazing’ which they had written in 2012 for the winning singer in a TV talent competition called ‘The X Factor’. The claimants alleged that Sheeran’s song was “instantly recognisable” as theirs. They therefore instructed solicitors to (2) provide with legal representation and proceeded to issue a claim against Sheeran for $20 million. Lawyers for Sheeran (3) responded against the claimants by stating that they had made “scandalous allegations”.

The parties reached a settlement before the matter went to trial, the exact terms of which were protected by a non-disclosure clause in the settlement agreement. However, it is likely that while Sheeran would have almost certainly (4) refused himself to admit liability, it is probable that the defendants would nonetheless have been (5) looking to between 20%-60% of the claimant’s share of the profits generated by sales of the song.

Dr Joe Bennett is based at Berklee College of Music and (6) specialises with music copyright. He concluded that melodically, there were so many similarities between the two works that it “was hard to dispute that it (the claimants’ song) was obviously plagiarised”. On this basis Dr Bennett commented that this was probably why Sheeran’s lawyers had (7) encouraged to settle. However, Dennis Collopy, a senior lecturer in the subject of the music industry at the University of Hertfordshire, did not (8) agree this. He stated the contrary view that “successful songs tend to fit into quite a narrow band of melody and structure”, that most were required to be “two minutes long” and had to be “catchy and include the chord progressions we are familiar with”.