Template:Barnacles: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call “[[barnacle|barnacles]]” — ''ad hoc'' responses to historic situations, anecdotal reactions to unexpected risks, [[flannel]]esque flourishes to placate a truculent | Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call “[[barnacle|barnacles]]” — ''ad hoc'' responses to historic situations, anecdotal reactions to unexpected risks, [[flannel]]esque flourishes to placate a truculent, obtuse or just downright [[Who’s Queen|''stubborn'' counterparty]] — no-one likes them, but if your client insists on redundant (or misconceived) terms (“[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”; “[[without limitation]]”; “because it is our [[policy]] to require them” — that kind of thing) for the [[Negotiator|sort of fellow]] who prefers a short-term fix over long-term existential satisfaction, the pragmatic response is to agree them and move toward execution. | ||
These [[barnacles]] have a habit of finding their way into, and encrusting, negotiation templates. And, as people move on, their original justification — if there even was one — becomes lost to time. The instinct of successive [[risk controller|risk controllers]] upon encountering them will be, “I | These [[barnacles]] have a habit of finding their way into, and encrusting, [[negotiation]] templates. And, as people move on, their original justification — if there even was one — becomes lost to time. The instinct of successive [[risk controller|risk controllers]], short an option as they are, upon encountering them will be, “I don’t know why that is there, but whoever put it in must have had a reason for doing that,<ref>Not necessarily so. Just as likely to be a misconception. As to which, see [[indemnity]].</ref> so the safest thing is to leave it there.” | ||
This will lead | This will lead ''more [[complicated]]'' templates, ''longer'' templates and a proliferation of ''different'' templates. <br> | ||
Latest revision as of 12:41, 13 December 2020
Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call “barnacles” — ad hoc responses to historic situations, anecdotal reactions to unexpected risks, flannelesque flourishes to placate a truculent, obtuse or just downright stubborn counterparty — no-one likes them, but if your client insists on redundant (or misconceived) terms (“for the avoidance of doubt”; “without limitation”; “because it is our policy to require them” — that kind of thing) for the sort of fellow who prefers a short-term fix over long-term existential satisfaction, the pragmatic response is to agree them and move toward execution.
These barnacles have a habit of finding their way into, and encrusting, negotiation templates. And, as people move on, their original justification — if there even was one — becomes lost to time. The instinct of successive risk controllers, short an option as they are, upon encountering them will be, “I don’t know why that is there, but whoever put it in must have had a reason for doing that,[1] so the safest thing is to leave it there.”
This will lead more complicated templates, longer templates and a proliferation of different templates.