What if: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a [[Mediocre lawyer|transactional lawyer]]. | {{a|plainenglish|}}Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a [[Mediocre lawyer|transactional lawyer]]. | ||
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses. | Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses. | ||
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies ''now'' that cannot predictably be resolved ''later'' — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: [[amendment]]. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, ''cost'' of finalising your contract. | But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies ''now'' that cannot predictably be resolved ''later'' — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: ''[[amendment]]''. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, ''cost'' of finalising your contract. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*[[The farmer and his sheep]] | *[[The farmer and his sheep]] | ||
{{c2|Drafting|Risk}} | {{c2|Drafting|Risk}} | ||
Revision as of 09:30, 6 November 2020
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a transactional lawyer.
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen contingencies. To do this, the draftsperson has many tools at her disposal: force majeure clauses, indemnities, termination rights, and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine valuation dispute clauses.
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies now that cannot predictably be resolved later — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: amendment. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, cost of finalising your contract.