Template:Deemed repetition: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
And what of this idea that one not only [[Representations and warranties|represents and warrants]] as of the moment one inks the paper, but also is [[deemed]] to ''repeat'' itself an the execution of each trade, on any day, or whenever a butterfly flaps its wings on [[Fitzcarraldo|Fitzcarraldo’s steamer]]<ref>Or whatever. WHATEVER DUDE.</ref>? Do we think it works? Do we? Given how<ref>WARNING: [[JC|CONTRARIAN]] VIEW COMING UP.</ref> practically '''useless''' even ''explicit'' [[representations]] are, ''does it really matter''? | And what of this idea that one not only [[Representations and warranties|represents and warrants]] as of the moment one inks the paper, but also is [[deemed]] to ''repeat'' itself an the execution of each trade, on any day, or whenever a butterfly flaps its wings on [[Fitzcarraldo|Fitzcarraldo’s steamer]]<ref>Or whatever. WHATEVER DUDE.</ref>? Do we think it works? Do we? Given how<ref>WARNING: [[JC|CONTRARIAN]] VIEW COMING UP.</ref> practically '''useless''' even ''explicit'' [[representations]] are, ''does it really matter''? | ||
And, having given | And, having given it, how are you supposed to ''stop'' a continuing {{tag|representation}} once it has marched off into the unknowable future, like one of those conjured brooms from the ''Sorcerer’s Apprentice''? If you don’t stop it, what then? This may seem fanciful to you, but what are buyside lawyers if not creatures of unlimited, gruesome imagination, given to flights of just this sort of fancy? You may rest assured that, as you do, they will be chewing their nails to the quick in insomniac fever about this precise contingency. For which reason — it being a faintly pointless representation in the first place and everything — it might be best just to concede this point when it arises, as inevitably it will. | ||
Revision as of 13:59, 19 July 2019
And what of this idea that one not only represents and warrants as of the moment one inks the paper, but also is deemed to repeat itself an the execution of each trade, on any day, or whenever a butterfly flaps its wings on Fitzcarraldo’s steamer[1]? Do we think it works? Do we? Given how[2] practically useless even explicit representations are, does it really matter?
And, having given it, how are you supposed to stop a continuing representation once it has marched off into the unknowable future, like one of those conjured brooms from the Sorcerer’s Apprentice? If you don’t stop it, what then? This may seem fanciful to you, but what are buyside lawyers if not creatures of unlimited, gruesome imagination, given to flights of just this sort of fancy? You may rest assured that, as you do, they will be chewing their nails to the quick in insomniac fever about this precise contingency. For which reason — it being a faintly pointless representation in the first place and everything — it might be best just to concede this point when it arises, as inevitably it will.
- ↑ Or whatever. WHATEVER DUDE.
- ↑ WARNING: CONTRARIAN VIEW COMING UP.