Common English Mistakes in Legal Briefs by Cantonese Speakers

This page focuses on errors typically made by native Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong when writing a Legal Brief in English.

Mistake Example #1

Overuse of 'very' to emphasize adjectives

The defendant's actions were veryreckless andvery irresponsible, causingvery significant harm to the plaintiff. It is very clear that the breach of contract was verydeliberate, and the damages incurred are verysubstantial. The plaintiff seeks veryfair compensation for thevery serious losses suffered due to the defendant's verynegligent behavior.

Text corrected by:
Jennifer, Detroit, Michigan USA

"Nice job! I took out the word "very" because it was redundant."

The defendant's actions were reckless and irresponsible, causing significant harm to the plaintiff. It is very clear that the breach of contract was deliberate, and the damages incurred are substantial. The plaintiff seeks fair compensation for the serious losses suffered due to the defendant's negligent behavior.

The defendant's actions were very reckless and very irresponsible, causing very significant harm to the plaintiff. It is very clear that the breach of contract was very deliberate, and the damages incurred are very substantial. The plaintiff seeks very fair compensation for the very serious losses suffered due to the defendant's very negligent behavior.

Mistake Example #2

Overuse of direct translations from Cantonese

In the matter of the contract dispute, we must first consider the situation of bothe parties. The plaintiff, he is saying that the defendant did not follow the agreement, but the defendant, he is saying that the terms were not clear. It is important to understand that both sides have their own reasons, and we should not just listen to one side only.

Text corrected by:
Jennifer, Detroit, Michigan USA

"I made a few changes so the English would sound more natural."

In the matter of the contract dispute, we must first consider the situation of both parties. The plaintiff is saying that the defendant did not follow the agreement, but the defendant is saying that the terms were not clear. It is important to understand that both sides have their own reasons, and we should not just listen to one side only.

In the matter of the contract dispute, we must first consider the situation of the parties. The plaintiff, he is saying that the defendant did not follow the agreement, but the defendant, he is saying that the terms were not clear. It is important to understand that both sides have their own reasons, and we should not just listen to one side only.

Mistake Example #3

Confusion with countable vs. uncountable nouns ('She has much friends')

In the matter of Lee v. Wong, the plaintiff argues that there is insufficient evidences to support the defendant's claim. The plaintiff has provided manyuch informations regarding the contract terms, which clearly indicate a breach. It is crucial that the court considers theise evidences carefully to ensure a fair judgment.

Text corrected by:
Vince, United States

"Just a few small changes were needed to correct grammar errors. Well done! "

In the matter of Lee v. Wong, the plaintiff argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the defendant's claim. The plaintiff has provided much information regarding the contract terms, which clearly indicate a breach. It is crucial that the court consider this evidence carefully to ensure a fair judgment.

In the matter of Lee v. Wong, the plaintiff argues that there is insufficient evidences to support the defendant's claim. The plaintiff has provided many informations regarding the contract terms, which clearly indicate a breach. It is crucial that the court considers these evidences carefully to ensure a fair judgment.