Template:Waiver capsule: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Our legal friends are liable to spout much paranoid nonsense about [[waiver]]s — some of it will trampling upon the very founding principles of the law they learned at their first-year {{tag|contract}} law tutor’s breast — if the proposition is advanced that “we have a right, but we didn’t use it, and now we might have lost it”.  
Our legal friends are liable to spout much paranoid nonsense about [[waiver]]s — some of it will trampling upon the very founding principles of the law they learned at their first-year [[contract]] law tutor’s breast — if the proposition is advanced that “we have a right, but we didn’t use it, and now we might have lost it”.  


Lost it?  Forever? Can a contractual right, unexercised, really just ''evaporate'' from the page while counsel wring their hands, like so much dew in the morning sun, or that alcoholic gel you find in the public conveniences of officious yet parsimonious organisations?
Lost it?  Forever? Can a contractual right, unexercised, really just ''evaporate'' from the page while counsel wring their hands, like so much dew in the morning sun, or that alcoholic gel you find in the public conveniences of officious yet parsimonious organisations?
Line 5: Line 5:
Your contractual rights are a not quite that ephemeral — at least not under [[English law]]. (Americans might like to check our page on [[course of dealing]] however). You don’t lose them ''forever'' just because you don’t exercise them: you might, however, be ''delayed'' in being able to exercise your rights.
Your contractual rights are a not quite that ephemeral — at least not under [[English law]]. (Americans might like to check our page on [[course of dealing]] however). You don’t lose them ''forever'' just because you don’t exercise them: you might, however, be ''delayed'' in being able to exercise your rights.


To find out more, read on about the two kinds of [[waiver]]: [[waiver by election]] — really, to state the bleeding obvious that by selecting alternative (1) under a contract, you are foregoing its mutually exclusive alternative (2) (for example, in selecting velveteen leopardskin upholstery for your new Tesla, you are waiving the opportunity to have chintz); and [[waiver by estoppel]] that, by your conduct in the furtherance of an existing contract, your election not to exercise a right gives right to an expectation you won’t exercise it, at least without giving further notice and a reasonable time for your counterparty to sort themselves out and get ready to perform it.
To find out more, see our articles about the two kinds of [[waiver]]: [[waiver by election|waiver by ''election'']]— really, to state the bleeding obvious that by selecting ''one'' thing under a contract, you are foregoing its mutually exclusive ''alternative'' (for example, you can have velveteen leopardskin upholstery in your new Tesla, or chintz, not both); and [[waiver by estoppel|''estoppel'' by waiver]]that, by your conduct in the furtherance of an existing contract, your election not to exercise a right gives right to an expectation you won’t exercise it, at least without giving further notice and a reasonable time for your counterparty to sort themselves out and get ready to perform it. Spiritually related, we think, to the reliance and [[change of position]] aspects of a defence to a claim in [[restitution]].


Generally, litigation tends to concern ''waiver by estoppel'', and arguments about [[waiver by election]] trouble only [[cakeists]].
Generally, litigation tends to concern [[waiver by estoppel]], and arguments about [[waiver by election]] trouble only [[cakeists]].
 
Spiritually related, we think, to the reliance and [[change of position]] aspects of a defence to a claim in [[restitution]].

Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024

Our legal friends are liable to spout much paranoid nonsense about waivers — some of it will trampling upon the very founding principles of the law they learned at their first-year contract law tutor’s breast — if the proposition is advanced that “we have a right, but we didn’t use it, and now we might have lost it”.

Lost it? Forever? Can a contractual right, unexercised, really just evaporate from the page while counsel wring their hands, like so much dew in the morning sun, or that alcoholic gel you find in the public conveniences of officious yet parsimonious organisations?

Your contractual rights are a not quite that ephemeral — at least not under English law. (Americans might like to check our page on course of dealing however). You don’t lose them forever just because you don’t exercise them: you might, however, be delayed in being able to exercise your rights.

To find out more, see our articles about the two kinds of waiver: “waiver by election” — really, to state the bleeding obvious that by selecting one thing under a contract, you are foregoing its mutually exclusive alternative (for example, you can have velveteen leopardskin upholstery in your new Tesla, or chintz, not both); and “estoppel by waiver” that, by your conduct in the furtherance of an existing contract, your election not to exercise a right gives right to an expectation you won’t exercise it, at least without giving further notice and a reasonable time for your counterparty to sort themselves out and get ready to perform it. Spiritually related, we think, to the reliance and change of position aspects of a defence to a claim in restitution.

Generally, litigation tends to concern waiver by estoppel, and arguments about waiver by election trouble only cakeists.