If ‘yet as’ meant the same thing as ‘as’, then why was ‘yet’ used?

  1. Am I correct that ‘yet as’ signified merely ‘as’? E.g., can I replace the ‘yet as’ in the quote beneath with ‘as’ or ‘because’ without affecting meaning?
  2. If so, please see the titled question. What role did yet play?

Paul Richards. Law of Contract (Foundation Studies in Law Series) (2019 14 edn).

The authority for the rule at common law can also be found in the case of Britton v Royal
Insurance Co.
(1866) 4 F & F 905 [online here] where Willes J stated:

A fire insurance, he said, is a contract of indemnity; that is, it is a contract to indemnify the
assured against the consequences of a fire, provided it is not wilful. Of course, if the assured set
fire to his house, he could not recover. That is clear. But it is not less clear that, even supposing
it were not wilful, [yet as as/because] it is a contract of indemnity only, that is, a contract to recoup the insured
the value of the property destroyed by fire, if the claim is fraudulent, it is defeated altogether.
That is, suppose the insured made a claim for twice the amount insured and lost, thus seeking
to put the office off its guard, and in the result to recover more than he is entitled to, that would
be a wilful fraud, and the consequence is that he could not recover anything. This is a defence
quite different from that of wilful arson. It gives the go-by to the origin of the fire, and it amounts
to this — that the assured took advantage of the fire to make a fraudulent claim. The law upon
such a case is in accordance with justice, and also with sound policy. The law is, that a person
who has made such a fraudulent claim could not be permitted to recover at all. The contract
of insurance is one of perfect good faith on both sides, and it is most important that such
good faith should be maintained. It is the common practice to insert in fire-policies conditions
that they shall be void in the event of a fraudulent claim; and there was such a condition in the
present case. Such a condition is only in accordance with legal principle and sound policy.


as/because is not interchangeable with yet as because it is contextually incorrect an example of why eg. It was supposed to be cloudy today, as/because/ yet as/ the sun fell upon my face i knew this wasn’t so. It creates an emphasis of being contrary to prior statement or known information.

Source : Link , Question Author : NNOX Apps , Answer Author : helpful guy

Leave a Comment