What if: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a [[Mediocre lawyer|transactional lawyer]]. | {{a|drafting|}}Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a [[Mediocre lawyer|transactional lawyer]]. | ||
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses. | Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses. | ||
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies ''now'' that cannot predictably be resolved ''later'' — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: [[amendment]]. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, ''cost'' of finalising your contract. | But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies ''now'' that cannot predictably be resolved ''later'' — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: ''[[amendment]]''. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, ''cost'' of finalising your contract. | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Highly unlikely]] | *[[Highly unlikely]] | ||
*[[Force majeure]] | *[[Force majeure]] | ||
*[[Chicken Licken]] | *[[Chicken Licken]] | ||
*[[Indemnity]] | *[[Indemnity]] | ||
*[[The farmer and | *[[The farmer and the sheep]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:26, 19 September 2022
|
The JC’s guide to writing nice.™
|
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a transactional lawyer.
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen contingencies. To do this, the draftsperson has many tools at her disposal: force majeure clauses, indemnities, termination rights, and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine valuation dispute clauses.
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies now that cannot predictably be resolved later — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: amendment. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, cost of finalising your contract.