Yhyjyk

OED:

1. Which homonym and false cognate fits 'sound'? v. 1 or v. 2?




2. How did 'sound' (v. 1 or 2) semantically shift to mean 'to be concerned only with'?

Two instances from English judges

Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2018 8 ed)

      For these reasons, I reject the solution of the ‘if’ contract. In my judgment, the true analysis
of the situation is simply this. Both parties confidently expected a formal contract to eventuate. In these circumstances, to expedite performance under that anticipated contract, one
requested the other to commence the contract work, and the other complied with that request. If thereafter, as anticipated, a contract was entered into, the work done as requested
will be treated as having been performed under that contract; if, contrary to their expectation,
no contract was entered into, then the performance of the work is not referable to any contract the terms of which can be ascertained, and the law simply imposes an obligation on
the party who made the request to pay a reasonable sum for such work as has been done
pursuant to that request, such an obligation sounding in quasi contract or, as we now say, in
restitution. Consistently with that solution, the party making the request may find himself liable to pay for work which he would not have had to pay for as such if the anticipated contract
had come into existence, e.g. preparatory work which will, if the contract is made, be allowed
for in the price of the finished work (cf William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v. Davis [1957] 2 All ER
712). This solution moreover accords with authority....I only wish to add to this part of my
judgment the footnote that, even if I had concluded that in the circumstances of the present
case there was a contract between the parties and that that contract was of the kind I have
described as an ‘if’ contract, then I would still have concluded that there was no obligation
under that contract on the part of BSC to continue with or complete the contract work, and
therefore no obligation on their part to complete the work within a reasonable time. However,
my conclusion in the present case is that the parties never entered into any contract at all.

Anson's Law of Contract (2016 30 ed)

In the Investors Compensation Scheme case:

A number of investors had been given negligent advice and had claims (in tort or for breach
of statutory duty) against their financial advisers, building societies and solicitors. A central
scheme was set up by the Securities and Investment Board to ensure compensation was paid
to the investors. To be entitled to compensation under that scheme, investors concluded a
contract of assignment with the Investors Compensation Scheme (the claimant) whereby
they assigned to the ICS their claims against their advisers, building societies and solicitors
subject to a clause excluding from the assignment ‘Any claim (whether sounding in
rescission for undue influence or otherwise)’ against a building society which would abate
sums otherwise owed to that society. In an action by the ICS against the defendant building
society, the central question was whether that clause meant that the investors had retained
(ie had not assigned) their rights to claim damages, as well as rescission, against the building
societies.

The House of Lords (Lord Lloyd dissenting) held that the right to claim rescission
had been retained but that the right to claim damages had been validly assigned. Te
exclusion from assignment clause, ‘Any claim (whether sounding in rescission for
undue influence or otherwise)’ was interpreted as if it had read, ‘Any claim sounding
in rescission (whether for undue influence or otherwise)’. This construction meant
that only claims for rescission, and not for damages, against the building societies were
excluded from the assignment.