Obligations binding: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{repanat|Obligations binding}}A representation that transgresses the very first rule of representations and warranties, which is that they are meant to be about matters o..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{repanat|Obligations binding}}A representation that transgresses the very first rule of [[representations and warranties]], which is that they are meant to be about matters of private fact, known to the representor but not the representee, but which the representee cares a lot about, | {{repanat|Obligations binding}}A representation that transgresses the very first rule of [[representations and warranties]], which is that they are meant to be about matters of private [[fact]], known to the representor but not the representee, but about which the representee cares a lot about, and might colour its view of entering the {{t|contract}} in the first place. Since the representee knows these things, and they’re just facts, it can safely make representations about them to the representee to make it feel better.. | ||
There are no such matters of private fact here: a contract is either valid and binding on a party or it isn’t; it isn’t the sort of thing that party can conceal from the other one. No; whether a contract is valid and binding is ''not'' a question of fact at all: it’s a question of ''law''. | |||
The person who can attest to these is a special fellow. A boy wizard. A legal eagle. If you want to know whether your agreement is binding, don’t ask the counterparty; ask | It, therefore, requires an ''[[opinion]]'', from one qualified to give such an opinion. The person who can attest to these is a special fellow. A boy wizard. A [[legal eagle]]. If you want to know whether your agreement is binding, don’t ask the counterparty; ask [[legal]]. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*Obligations binding under the {{isdama}} | *Obligations binding under the {{isdama}} | ||
Revision as of 17:43, 14 February 2020
|
Representations and Warranties Anatomy™
{{{2}}}
|
A representation that transgresses the very first rule of representations and warranties, which is that they are meant to be about matters of private fact, known to the representor but not the representee, but about which the representee cares a lot about, and might colour its view of entering the contract in the first place. Since the representee knows these things, and they’re just facts, it can safely make representations about them to the representee to make it feel better..
There are no such matters of private fact here: a contract is either valid and binding on a party or it isn’t; it isn’t the sort of thing that party can conceal from the other one. No; whether a contract is valid and binding is not a question of fact at all: it’s a question of law.
It, therefore, requires an opinion, from one qualified to give such an opinion. The person who can attest to these is a special fellow. A boy wizard. A legal eagle. If you want to know whether your agreement is binding, don’t ask the counterparty; ask legal.
See also
- Obligations binding under the ISDA Master Agreement