Absolute discretion: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
An “absolute” [[discretion]] is to be contrasted in theory, if not really in practice, with one that is bounded by an overriding obligation to act “in [[good faith]], and in a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”. But, as we have sounded off [[Commercial imperative|elsewhere]], any merchant that acts in [[bad faith|''bad'' faith]], or in a [[Commercially reasonable|commercially ''un''reasonable]] manner, ''even if his contract permits it'', should not expect to have clients for very long. | An “absolute” [[discretion]] is to be contrasted in theory, if not really in practice, with one that is bounded by an overriding obligation to act “in [[good faith]], and in a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”. But, as we have sounded off [[Commercial imperative|elsewhere]], any merchant that acts in [[bad faith|''bad'' faith]], or in a [[Commercially reasonable|commercially ''un''reasonable]] manner, ''even if his contract permits it'', should not expect to have clients for very long. | ||
You will hear it [[Special pleading|specially plead]] that, for all its superficial appeal, a component of “reasonableness” in a discretion invites argument about its scope, precisely at the point where you might not want any. When, for example, you are exercising a reasonable discretion to demand more [[margin]], or something like that. But this argument has more mouth than trouser: | |||
A discretion, by its nature, is a self-help remedy. Its exercise requires no permission; no appeal to the court, no arbitral award. One may just do it, at — well — at one’s ''discretion''. Forensic examination of the ''propriety'' of the exercise of a reasonable discretion necessarily come after the fact. Yes; your counterparty might challenge it in court, but it is only likely to do that ''if you were being manifestly unreasonable'': the standard of reasonableness, as we have seen,<ref>{{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}</ref> hard for a third party to displace. You can control for this later eventuality by ''not'' being manifestly unreasonable. But for the time being, you can just carry on.<ref>Your client might, of course, seek an interim injunction to stop you exercising your reasonable discretion. This happens literally ''all the time''.</ref> | |||
If you are staring into the abyss — if your genuinely believe your client is corkscrewing into the side of a hill — and you hesitate to exercise a discretion because it might not turn out to have been reasonable, the problem is not with your legal documents. It is with you. Your coat is on the hook. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 09:31, 22 October 2021
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
Also known as “discretion”, seeing as a discretion is not really the sort of thing that admits of degrees. You either have a discretion, or you don’t and, generally in a contract, as in life, you do, except where you have categorically agreed you do not. In none of these cases does the adjective “absolute” move the conversation on.
That said, as a percussive adjective, “absolute” does pleasingly punctuate a sentence, rather, in the same way it does when placed next to the word “twat”.
An “absolute” discretion is to be contrasted in theory, if not really in practice, with one that is bounded by an overriding obligation to act “in good faith, and in a commercially reasonable manner”. But, as we have sounded off elsewhere, any merchant that acts in bad faith, or in a commercially unreasonable manner, even if his contract permits it, should not expect to have clients for very long.
You will hear it specially plead that, for all its superficial appeal, a component of “reasonableness” in a discretion invites argument about its scope, precisely at the point where you might not want any. When, for example, you are exercising a reasonable discretion to demand more margin, or something like that. But this argument has more mouth than trouser:
A discretion, by its nature, is a self-help remedy. Its exercise requires no permission; no appeal to the court, no arbitral award. One may just do it, at — well — at one’s discretion. Forensic examination of the propriety of the exercise of a reasonable discretion necessarily come after the fact. Yes; your counterparty might challenge it in court, but it is only likely to do that if you were being manifestly unreasonable: the standard of reasonableness, as we have seen,[1] hard for a third party to displace. You can control for this later eventuality by not being manifestly unreasonable. But for the time being, you can just carry on.[2]
If you are staring into the abyss — if your genuinely believe your client is corkscrewing into the side of a hill — and you hesitate to exercise a discretion because it might not turn out to have been reasonable, the problem is not with your legal documents. It is with you. Your coat is on the hook.
See also
- ↑ Barclays v Unicredit
- ↑ Your client might, of course, seek an interim injunction to stop you exercising your reasonable discretion. This happens literally all the time.