83,371
edits
Template:Waiver chains: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (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...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 | 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.<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> 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. | ||
The [[estoppel]] is specific to the particular circumstance. If you have a recurring right (you know, like to make a [[margin call]]), then just because you waived it once — even if you somehow permanently waived it — that doesn’t mean you have waived it for all time. Just because you didn’t enforce this time, that doesn’t mean you are prevented from ever enforcing in the future. This is at least implicit in the following passage from the leading modern case on waiver, {{casenote|Kosmar Villa Holidays plc|Trustees of Syndicate 1243}}: | |||
{{quote|{{estoppel quote Kosmar}}}} | |||
It may be a real fear, but we are not persuaded it would bear real fruit. 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. | |||
So, 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]]''.<ref>Don’t ''be'' a jerk, and don’t do business with one either.</ref> | |||