Legal: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====I am a human being==== | ====I am a human being==== | ||
The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, [[Legal]]”<ref>There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as | The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, [[Legal]]”<ref>There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as honed sarcasm, as in the phrase “Hi, [[Legal Eagles]]!!!”</ref>. | ||
====Help me, Legal ==== | ====Help me, Legal ==== | ||
Revision as of 10:21, 19 January 2017
I am a human being
The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, Legal”[1].
Help me, Legal
The words “I cannot say: you’ll have to ask legal” drop like scented jewels from the lips of colleagues who can’t be bothered — or are too scared — to make a simple decision by themselves. No-one likes making decisions in modern multinationals: no individual good comes of it, however much collective good may follow[2].
But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, none of them are: the law deemed you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is a virtue.
“Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “Legal” can opine, of course — nothing gives “Legal” greater pleasure than sounding off on offer, acceptance and invitation to treat or weighing in on whether the intention to create legal relations is an independent ingredient of the consensus ad idem[3]. Contract formation is not alchemy: you do it without pause at the supermarket checkout and when you press a copper into your newsagent’s mitten.
It is binary, however, for — and this is a matter of logic, not law — either there is a contract, or there isn’t, but there is no purgatorial state between them. It’s like being pregnant: there is no third way. You must hitch your wagon to one train or the other.
References
- ↑ There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as honed sarcasm, as in the phrase “Hi, Legal Eagles!!!”
- ↑ Individual good comes from taking credit for decisions made once they have safely borne fruit, not from taking a view.
- ↑ Whatever the learned academics and the courts may say it is not. Intention to create legal relations is the inference you draw from an accepted offer supported by consideration.