Promptly: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|negotiation|}}Where an obligation is expressed be performable “'''[[immediately]]'''”, do we lose anything if we yielding in favour of “[[as soon as reasonably practicable]]”? [[Chicken licken]]s may be aghast, but [[Jolly Contrarian|your old contrarian pal]] says no.
{{a|negotiation|}}Where an obligation must be performed “'''[[immediately]]'''”, do we lose anything by yielding to the opposition’s request to demote that to “[[promptly]]” or “[[as soon as reasonably practicable]]”?  


:''In the event that Party A makes any material changes to its investment policies it [[shall]] be [[obligated]] to {{strike|immediately}}{{insert|as soon as reasonably practicable}} notify Party B.
[[Chicken licken]]s may be aghast, but [[Jolly Contrarian|your old contrarian pal]] says “no”.


What does “immediately”, as used here, even mean? Do we expect poor benighted Party A to be in [[fundamental breach]] should it fail at the instant — measured upon an atomic clock — that the alteration to said investment policy is formally approved in the institution’s minutes?
{{quote|[[In the event that]] Party B [''a fund''] makes any material changes to its investment policies it [[shall]] be [[obligated]], {{strike|immediately|as soon as reasonably practicable}}, to notify Fund [''its broker''].}}


No? Then within what period can one dither and still be thought of as in the moment?
What does “immediately”, as used here, even mean? Do we expect poor benighted fund to be in [[fundamental breach]] should it fail to advise its broker at the utter microscopic instant, measured upon an atomic clock, that the change is formally approved in the institution’s minutes?  


You might think Party A needs ''some'' time to collect itself, canter back to the office, fish the Rolodex out of the drawer, find Party A’s number, clear its throat, wait for Party A to pick up the line and exchange some human pleasantries before imparting this vital news. If so, you might ask yourself just how different that sense of “[[immediately]]” is to “[[as soon as reasonably practicable]]”. Not very, is your correspondent’s opinion.
No? Then within what period can one dither and still be thought of as sufficiently in the moment to be “immediate”?


In any case, unless Party B is both gagging to close this poor fund, and possessed of some unnatural intelligence as to its precise internal workings, as a covenant it is literally unenforceable in any case. Here are the possible scenarios after Party A changes its investment policy:
Surely a fund needs ''some'' time to collect itself, canter back to the office, fish out its Rolodex, find its broker’s number, clear its throat, wait for its relationship manager to pick up the line and exchange some pleasantries before imparting this vital news. If so, you might ask yourself just how different that sense of “[[immediately]]” is to “[[as soon as reasonably practicable]]”, or even “[[promptly]].  
#'''Party A does not tell Party B of the change ''at all'' but Party B is oblivious to the change''': Party A has breached its covenant, but Party B cannot know this, so is in no position to take any action. Hard cheese, Party B!
#'''Party A does not tell Party B of the change ''at all'' but Party B somehow gets wind of it''': Party A has breached its contract, Party B knows of it, but because Party B knows about it, it is in exactly the position it would have been in had Party A complied with the contract, and cannot therefore suffer any loss as a result.  
#'''Party A does not tell Party B of the change ''at first'' and hasn’t yet, but will do eventually, after an unreasonable delay''':  Same as 1: To paraphrase the head chef at Fawlty Towers, [[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with|eye is not seeing, so the chef is getting away with it]].
#'''Party A does not tell Party B of the change ''at first'' but then does tell Party B, only after an unreasonable delay''': By the time Party B finds out the contract has both been breached ''and remedied'', so it is hard to see what action lies.


“Immediately” might ''look'' severe, but it has a handsome economy quite lacking from “[[as soon as reasonably practicable]]”. A [[prose stylist]] might feel forcing such an inelegance on an already ungainly contract to be an unnecessary step. But it is not a hill that many negotiators would die on.
''Not very'', is your correspondent’s opinion.
 
In any case, even where aggrieved, indignant broker is gagging to [[close out]] its poor client — and there is rarely unanimous conviction on such a thing inside a [[broker]] at the best of times — unless it is possessed of some unnatural intelligence as to the fund’s internal workings — and, when it comes down to it, even then — the [[covenant]] is [[Practical|practically]] unenforceable in any case.
 
Here are the possible scenarios after, for example, a fund changes its investment policy in ostensible transgression of a commitment not to do so without telling its broker:
 
====Fund does not tell its broker ''at all''====
'''1. The broker never finds out''': The fund has breached its covenant, but its broker cannot know this, so is in no position to take any action. Hard cheese, broker!
 
'''2. The broker does find out''': The fund has breached its contract, its broker knows this but, precisely ''because'' the broker knows about it, no particular harm done. The broker is no worse of than had the fund told it, and cannot really suffer any loss as a result.
====Fund does not tell Party B ''at first====
'''3. The broker has not found out ''yet''''': Same as 1: To paraphrase Terry, head cook at ''Fawlty Towers'', [[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with|the eye is not seeing, so the chef is getting away with it]].
 
'''4. The broker funds out eventually''': Same as 2. By the time the broker finds out, the contract has both been breached ''and remedied'', so it is hard to see what action lies.
 
“[[Immediately]]” might ''look'' severe, and it does have a handsome economy quite lacking from “[[as soon as reasonably practicable]]”. But not as much as “[[promptly]].  


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*The difference between [[practical|practi''cal'']] and [[practicable|practi''cable'']].
*The difference between [[practical|practi''cal'']] and [[practicable|practi''cable'']].
*[[As soon as possible but in any event not later than]]
*[[As soon as possible but in any event not later than]]
*[[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with]]

Latest revision as of 14:52, 22 September 2023

Negotiation Anatomy™

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Where an obligation must be performed “immediately”, do we lose anything by yielding to the opposition’s request to demote that to “promptly” or “as soon as reasonably practicable”?

Chicken lickens may be aghast, but your old contrarian pal says “no”.

In the event that Party B [a fund] makes any material changes to its investment policies it shall be obligated, immediately as soon as reasonably practicable, to notify Fund [its broker].

What does “immediately”, as used here, even mean? Do we expect poor benighted fund to be in fundamental breach should it fail to advise its broker at the utter microscopic instant, measured upon an atomic clock, that the change is formally approved in the institution’s minutes?

No? Then within what period can one dither and still be thought of as sufficiently in the moment to be “immediate”?

Surely a fund needs some time to collect itself, canter back to the office, fish out its Rolodex, find its broker’s number, clear its throat, wait for its relationship manager to pick up the line and exchange some pleasantries before imparting this vital news. If so, you might ask yourself just how different that sense of “immediately” is to “as soon as reasonably practicable”, or even “promptly”.

Not very, is your correspondent’s opinion.

In any case, even where aggrieved, indignant broker is gagging to close out its poor client — and there is rarely unanimous conviction on such a thing inside a broker at the best of times — unless it is possessed of some unnatural intelligence as to the fund’s internal workings — and, when it comes down to it, even then — the covenant is practically unenforceable in any case.

Here are the possible scenarios after, for example, a fund changes its investment policy in ostensible transgression of a commitment not to do so without telling its broker:

Fund does not tell its broker at all

1. The broker never finds out: The fund has breached its covenant, but its broker cannot know this, so is in no position to take any action. Hard cheese, broker!

2. The broker does find out: The fund has breached its contract, its broker knows this but, precisely because the broker knows about it, no particular harm done. The broker is no worse of than had the fund told it, and cannot really suffer any loss as a result.

Fund does not tell Party B at first

3. The broker has not found out yet: Same as 1: To paraphrase Terry, head cook at Fawlty Towers, the eye is not seeing, so the chef is getting away with it.

4. The broker funds out eventually: Same as 2. By the time the broker finds out, the contract has both been breached and remedied, so it is hard to see what action lies.

Immediately” might look severe, and it does have a handsome economy quite lacking from “as soon as reasonably practicable”. But not as much as “promptly”.

See also