Because one ounce is less than one pound.
So if I owe you a hundred dollars I can’t open my wallet and count “ten, twenty, thirty, forty”? I’ve got to randomly grab a handful of bills, hand them to you and hope I’d grabbed a hundred?
That is a very good example. Yes, that is pretty much what Shylock agreed to.
I disagree.
Just because you are entitled to something, you do not legally have to take it all do you. If I owe you $100, do you have to take it all or could you legally take less if you want?
And I don’t recall Shylock’s contract saying that the poundof flesh had to be taken all at once.
FWIW, there are some scholarly writings that agree that actual law would have been behind Shylock. Taking less than what’s allowed by the contract is not a violation of the contract (though more certainly would be), and there’s some legal principal that if you agree to something in a contract, you’re agreeing to everything else necessary for that to take place. Since there’s no way to remove flesh without shedding blood, shedding blood is implicitly agreed to in a contract allowing the removal of flesh.
Why does flesh have to be muscle? I’m thinking skinning is the way to go. Skin should certainly count as flesh.
Of course, remember that this is a play. Shakespeare needed a way for Shylock to be thwarted, and of course the members of the court would be looking for any plausible excuse not to have to enforce his contract. They would have seized on the argument regardless of its actual legality.
The outcome of the case in the play has about the same relationship to actual legal issues as the average episode of Perry Mason. 
Then the part about “take no less” is meaningless if you can just keep taking bits until it equals one pound.
You could easily take at least 5 lbs of fat right from under the skin of my ass. As long as blood loss was controlled and enough skin was left to repair the wound, I’m sure I would be fine, although it might have some longer-term hormonal effects.
Of course then I would not have much of an ass left at all, which would be very sad.
I dont have a copy of MoV handy. I know Portia interpreted the contract as no more and no less but what was the original agreement?
I don’t think it is ever quoted in full.
But the part about taking no less than a pound is meaningless only if Shylock stops cutting off pieces before he gets a pound total. I can see threatening him with the scenario where he has cut off fifteen and a half ounces, and then cuts off three quarters of an ounce - that would certainly violate the contract. But I don’t see any violation if Shylock cuts off smaller pieces on the way to chopping off the full pound. As mentioned, I don’t recall any mention of the contract saying the pound has to be cut off in one go. That’s only what Portia says.
I wonder if there is any other mention of the terms of the contract in other stories, on which The Merchant of Venice is based.
Regards,
Shodan
Why can’t it mean that he can’t stop taking until he’s taken his pound?
“Give me a hundred dollars. No more, no less.”
“Sure. Ten, twenty, thirty, forty…”
The “Greed” victim in the movie Seven (forced to cut a pound of flesh from his body) died of blood loss, if memory serves.
From what Portia quotes, it would seem that the contract just says “a pound of flesh,” nothing about exactly a pound. However, in Act 1, Shylock mentions “an equal pound.” If that was actually in the contract, it could be interpreted as exactly a pound.
However, there is also:
It is clear from this that the expectation is that Antonio might survive his wounds if he received medical treatment.
It is Shylock’s insistence on adhering to the letter of the bond that gives Portia an opening to deny him taking any blood.
That is exactly what makes it meaningless. Why would Portia add the part about “less nor more” if she intended to allow Shylock to cut the pound in such a way that it is impossible to have either less, or more? That is why it is meaningless.
Why did Portia add the part about “less nor more” if it there is no risk of either less, or more?
The actual answer, I think, is that she’s just messing with him. The limitation on taking blood is enough; now she’s just making up stuff.
If no blood is to be shed, then the contract is meaningless, as you can’t cut someone without bleeding. That’s the whole point of this made up loophole. It’s not good law, but it is entertaining.
You can count out ten-spots from your wallet until you have a hundred, and then hand it over - no problem there. You can probably even count the notes in your wallet without removing any. But as Shylock’s bond is interpreted by the court, he has to take a pound in one go. The piece of flesh isn’t off until it’s completely severed, but once it’s off, it has to weigh a pound, no more or less.
@The Second Stone: I believe the official line of the court is “You should have thought of that when you drew up the bond”. A notary worth his salt would have addressed the issues - whether blood can be shed; what is a contractually admissible error - before Shylock and Antonio signed. Shylock probably has a case against him for being a bumbling incompetent. 
I’ve always thought that the court scene was a crock. Why is Portia pronouncing the judgement and not the judge? Then I saw the (US) legal system wherein many times the judge will rule however they want and then pick (or twist) the law to justify their decision.
Al of the sudden, MoV made more sense.
And this actually makes good sense. Cutting off a pound of flesh isn’t like paying out a set amount of money. If I’m paying you, I’m losing money, but that’s my sole injury. But with the pound of flesh, the injury isn’t just the loss of flesh, but the physical pain attendant upon its removal. That pain is minimized if you’re only permitted one cut - if you’re permitted as many cuts as it takes to get to one pound, my pain is far greater.
Thus, it’s not unreasonable for a mercifully inclined judge (like Portia) to insist that the “pound of flesh” is a single unit, to be removed at once or not at all.