Material adverse change: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The [[material adverse change]] — fondly known as a “[[MAC]]” is something ineffable and hard to describe in concept, but you will know one when you see it. It is a hotly debated topic among the [[negotiator]] community | {{a|contract|}}The [[material adverse change]] — fondly known as a “[[MAC]]” is something ineffable and hard to describe in concept, but you will know one when you see it. It is a hotly debated topic among the [[negotiator]] community and a good example of the limitations of all this breathless [[smart contract]] chat. | ||
But what, exactly, is “material”? English lawyers might shrug and be a little hand-wavy here — you know, not trivial; not formalistic: “‘Material’ has its normal meaning of something which is real, substantial, significant, not ''de minimis'', something which would affect the way in which you look at something but not necessarily decisively”<ref>{{citen|Attrill & Ors|Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd|2012|EWHC 1189}}</ref> —but as the [[doyen of drafting]] attests,<ref>[[A Manual of Style For the Drafting of Contracts|Ken Adams]], {{plainlink|https://www.adamsdrafting.com/rethinking-material-and-mac/|''Rethinking “Material” and “Material Adverse Change”''}}</ref> our [[litigationey]] [[US attorney|American friends]] have gone further down the rabbit-hole than that. Of ''course'' they have. There is US authority that “material” means “information that, if known, would cause a party to walk away from the transaction”. This is a high bar: a lot higher than “non-trivial”. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
*[[Creditworthiness]] | *[[Creditworthiness]] | ||
*[[Smart contract]]s | *[[Smart contract]]s | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 13:12, 13 August 2024
The material adverse change — fondly known as a “MAC” is something ineffable and hard to describe in concept, but you will know one when you see it. It is a hotly debated topic among the negotiator community and a good example of the limitations of all this breathless smart contract chat.
But what, exactly, is “material”? English lawyers might shrug and be a little hand-wavy here — you know, not trivial; not formalistic: “‘Material’ has its normal meaning of something which is real, substantial, significant, not de minimis, something which would affect the way in which you look at something but not necessarily decisively”[1] —but as the doyen of drafting attests,[2] our litigationey American friends have gone further down the rabbit-hole than that. Of course they have. There is US authority that “material” means “information that, if known, would cause a party to walk away from the transaction”. This is a high bar: a lot higher than “non-trivial”.
See also
References
- ↑ Attrill & Ors v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2012] EWHC 1189 {{{5}}}
- ↑ Ken Adams, Rethinking “Material” and “Material Adverse Change”