Third party: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|cosmology|}} if we take it it as granted, per the experimental lexa physics of pioneers such as J.F.M. Biggs that traditional Euclidean geometry does not adequately de..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|cosmology|}} | {{a|cosmology|}}If we take it it as granted, per the experimental [[lexophysics]] of pioneers such as [[J. M. F. Biggs]] that traditional Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe the [[space-tedium continuum]], with its in-folded [[incluso]]s, [[proviso]]s, [[proviso]]s, then we have to consider whether the usual three-dimensional model of the legal universe is still fit for purpose. | ||
A naive view of commerce would say there | A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“[[Party A]]” and “[[Party B]]” or, for old fashioned finance types, “[[Bank]]” and “[[Borrower]]”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties. | ||
Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]]. The idea was to confer upon ''third'' parties some of [[fruits of the contract]] where the first and second parties deliberately intended it. This could make such a third party some kind of second-and-a-half party as if it's dimensionality were reduced by some fractal proportion. | |||
But with the advent of of contractual provisions, like nested [[carve-in]]s, which toy with space- tedium [[carvature]] which clearly fold into unexplored space tedium dimensions we wonder whether there is not room 4th 5th or 6th parties? | |||
Latest revision as of 19:49, 3 December 2022
|
If we take it it as granted, per the experimental lexophysics of pioneers such as J. M. F. Biggs that traditional Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe the space-tedium continuum, with its in-folded inclusos, provisos, provisos, then we have to consider whether the usual three-dimensional model of the legal universe is still fit for purpose.
A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“Party A” and “Party B” or, for old fashioned finance types, “Bank” and “Borrower”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties.
Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The idea was to confer upon third parties some of fruits of the contract where the first and second parties deliberately intended it. This could make such a third party some kind of second-and-a-half party as if it's dimensionality were reduced by some fractal proportion.
But with the advent of of contractual provisions, like nested carve-ins, which toy with space- tedium carvature which clearly fold into unexplored space tedium dimensions we wonder whether there is not room 4th 5th or 6th parties?