Template:Waiver chains: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(Created page with "===Waiver chains=== You will see deep in the boilerplate confections like this: {{quote|“Any waiver of any breach of this agreement shall not be deemed to operate as a w...")
 
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 4: Line 4:
You know what the JC thinks about [[I never said you couldn’t|contractual denials of things no-one was asserting in the first place]]: they are a waste of trees. Is this, as it seems, such a waste of trees, or are waivers some kind of magical force-field of contractual energy, that spark and fizz and o’er-leap logical gates, like pole-vaulting crabs — that one waiver could trigger a ''chain'' of waivers, snaking into the distance, or mushrooming exponentially into a violent litigatory fireball?
You know what the JC thinks about [[I never said you couldn’t|contractual denials of things no-one was asserting in the first place]]: they are a waste of trees. Is this, as it seems, such a waste of trees, or are waivers some kind of magical force-field of contractual energy, that spark and fizz and o’er-leap logical gates, like pole-vaulting crabs — that one waiver could trigger a ''chain'' of waivers, snaking into the distance, or mushrooming exponentially into a violent litigatory fireball?


Now, to be sure, it has been a while since the [[Jolly Contrarian|JC]] sat in a [[contract]] law lecture — but, readers, we don’t remember the golden thread of precedent that led down this particular alley. Nor, as far as we know has there been a new one in the intervening decades t hat should justify this boilerplate. We feel this is paranoid, throwaway [[verbiage]] — perhaps prompted by a near miss once, or a bad dream, or one of those psychiatric episodes [[Credit officer|credit officers]] are prone to.<ref>Legal scholars/students/friends: Do [mailto:enquiries@jollycontrarian.com write in] if you know the genesis of this piece of [[boilerplate]], won’t you? </ref>
Now, to be sure, it has been a while since the [[Jolly Contrarian|JC]] sat in a [[contract]] law lecture — but, readers, we don’t remember the [[woolmington|golden thread of precedent]] that led down this particular alley. Nor, as far as we know has there been a new one in the intervening decades to justify this [[boilerplate]]. We suspect this is paranoid, throwaway [[verbiage]] — perhaps prompted by a near miss once, or a bad dream, or one of those psychiatric episodes [[Credit officer|credit officers]] are prone to.<ref>Legal scholars/students/friends: Do [mailto:enquiries@jollycontrarian.com write in] if you know the genesis of this piece of [[boilerplate]], won’t you? </ref>


But we are not persuaded it is likely. It makes little sense. After all, on the English law theory of the game,<ref>[[Course of dealing]]s caveats aside, for our American friends.</ref> a waiver is an impermanent, for the time being, sort of thing. You can stop a single waiver, as long as you give your counterparty time to get back on her horse and fashion enough of a run-up so she can approach the fence at a reasonable clip.  
But we are not persuaded it is likely. It makes little sense. After all, on the English law theory of the game,<ref>[[Course of dealing]]s caveats aside, for our American friends.</ref> a waiver is an impermanent, for the time being, sort of thing. You can stop a single waiver, as long as you give your counterparty time to get back on her horse and fashion enough of a run-up so she can approach the fence at a reasonable clip.  


Even if one waiver ''could'' spark another one — and who knows, there could be events so closely related you trigger them all at once, we suppose — they can be doused easily enough later on. But really, your better bet is not to make contractual relations with the sort of person who would take that kind of point.  Our home-baked latin maxim refers: ''[[non sis arsholeus nec mercatum cum arsholibus facias]]''.
Even if one waiver ''could'' spark another one — and who knows, there could be events so closely related you trigger them all at once, we suppose — they can be doused easily enough later on. But really, your better bet is not to make contractual relations with the sort of person who would take that kind of point.  Our home-baked latin maxim refers: ''[[non sis arsholeus nec mercatum cum arsholibus facias]]''.