Inure: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Basically pure {{tag|flannel}}. If you are a party to a contract your counterparty's obligations are legally binding. That's all you need to know. Chicken lic..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|boilerplate|}}{{d|Inure|/ɪˈnjʊə,ɪˈnjɔː/|v}} | |||
(''pedantic''): Of a legal [[right]], especially one arising under a [[contract]], to belong to, or be available to, a person. | |||
To be, in other words, a ''[[right]]''. | |||
This is often seen in the context of [[successors and assigns]] [[boilerplate]]. | |||
Why “to the benefit of”? | |||
Because it is the verbal construction that provides enough diversion to obscure the fact that this is a statement of not just the bleeding obvious, but the ''necessarily true''. A contract creates rights and obligations in and of itself; there is no need to further inure it, or them, to anyone. They just ''are''. The inheritance of a right between a dying, or merging, or assigning counterparty is, likewise, an operation of some defined legal process or other (perhaps a [[novation]], [[merger]] or the laws surrounding probate and succession). These successions and assignments are not, principally a function of the contract itself — except where it ''prohibits'' [[assignment]]). | |||
By [[Enter into|entering into]] this contract, I acquire a right. I do not need it to then inure to me. If you are a party to a contract your counterparty's [[obligation|obligations]] are legally binding. That’s all you need to know. [[Chicken licken]], relax: the sky will not fall on your head if you don't say they “[[inure]]” to you. Or, for that matter, to you [[successors and assigns]]. | |||
Latest revision as of 14:02, 27 September 2022
|
Boilerplate Anatomy™
|
Inure
/ɪˈnjʊə,ɪˈnjɔː/ (v.)
(pedantic): Of a legal right, especially one arising under a contract, to belong to, or be available to, a person.
To be, in other words, a right.
This is often seen in the context of successors and assigns boilerplate.
Why “to the benefit of”?
Because it is the verbal construction that provides enough diversion to obscure the fact that this is a statement of not just the bleeding obvious, but the necessarily true. A contract creates rights and obligations in and of itself; there is no need to further inure it, or them, to anyone. They just are. The inheritance of a right between a dying, or merging, or assigning counterparty is, likewise, an operation of some defined legal process or other (perhaps a novation, merger or the laws surrounding probate and succession). These successions and assignments are not, principally a function of the contract itself — except where it prohibits assignment).
By entering into this contract, I acquire a right. I do not need it to then inure to me. If you are a party to a contract your counterparty's obligations are legally binding. That’s all you need to know. Chicken licken, relax: the sky will not fall on your head if you don't say they “inure” to you. Or, for that matter, to you successors and assigns.