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 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|}}[[Inure]]<br> | |||
/ɪˈnjʊə,ɪˈnjɔː/ | |||
{{ | ''[[Verb]]'' (pedantic): Of a legal right, especially one arising under a [[contract]], to belong to, or be available to, a person. | ||
This is often seen in the context of [[successors and assigns]], like so: “this [[contract]] will be binding upon and [[inure]] to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their [[successors and assigns]]”. | |||
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 jsut the bleeding obvious, but the necessarily true. A contract creates rights and obligations in and of itself; there is no need to further inure them to anyone. The inheritance of a right between a dying, or merging, or assigning counterpasrty is likewise an operation of some other legal process (perhaps a novation, merger or the laws surrounding probate and succession) and not, principally contract (except where it bars [[assignment]]). I have a right. Thus, inuring is purest {{tag|flannel}}. 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]]. | |||
Revision as of 11:34, 27 November 2020
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Inure
/ɪˈnjʊə,ɪˈnjɔː/
Verb (pedantic): Of a legal right, especially one arising under a contract, to belong to, or be available to, a person.
This is often seen in the context of successors and assigns, like so: “this contract will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their successors and assigns”.
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 jsut the bleeding obvious, but the necessarily true. A contract creates rights and obligations in and of itself; there is no need to further inure them to anyone. The inheritance of a right between a dying, or merging, or assigning counterpasrty is likewise an operation of some other legal process (perhaps a novation, merger or the laws surrounding probate and succession) and not, principally contract (except where it bars assignment). I have a right. Thus, inuring is purest flannel. 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.