The business owns legal issues: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|}}{{quote|''Ignorantia juris non excusat.''}}A founding, fundamental point, but one lost in our disintermediated, siloed age: the ultimate owner of legal risk is not legal, but the business. Legal simply advises the business on the legal risk.
{{a|devil|}}{{quote|''Ignorantia juris non excusat.''}}A founding, fundamental point, but one lost in our disintermediated, siloed age: the ultimate owner of legal risk is not legal, but the business. Legal simply ''advises'' the business on the legal risk. Business makes the call.
 
In the same way your family solicitor advises you ''when asked''. It’s up to you to seek advice, and up to you whether to follow it.


Some counterintuitive implications of this:
Some counterintuitive implications of this:
*The business ''should'' make legal calls within normal operating parameters (the “[[BAU]]”), as it is responsible should it get them wrong, the same way you are responsible if you accidentally shoplift, or drive on the wrong side of the road. Your [[lawyer]] doesn’t go to jail; ''you'' do.
*The business ''should'' make legal calls within normal operating parameters (the “[[BAU]]”), as it is responsible should it get them wrong, the same way you are responsible if you accidentally shoplift, or drive on the wrong side of the road. Your [[lawyer]] doesn’t go to jail; ''you'' do.
*The business ''should'' read the whole contract. Yes, ''the whole contract''. Like, ''what''? Sure. You are taking responsibility for everything in it, after all (see above). Why ''wouldn’t'' you read it? Are you just going to take it on faith from the [[legal eagle|legal eagles]]? There is room here for an extended essay on “how things have got to this pretty pass, in which a business person with a decent liberal education is yet not not reasonably ''capable'' of understanding a legal contract” — and rent-seeking legal eagles do play a role in that story, but we will save it for another day.
*The business ''should'' read the whole contract. Yes, ''the whole contract''. Like, ''what''? Sure. You are taking responsibility for everything in it, after all (see above). Why ''wouldn’t'' you read it? Are you just going to take it on faith from the [[legal eagle|legal eagles]]? They have no dog in the fight. If it’s a bad contract, ''you'' lose. There is room here for an extended essay on “how things have got to this pretty pass, in which a business person with a decent liberal education is yet not not reasonably ''capable'' of understanding a legal contract” — and rent-seeking legal eagles do play a role in that story, but we will save it for another day.
*The business should therefore know not just the [[known known]]s <ref>And the [[unknown known]]s, but [[QED]] it ''does not'' know those. Such is the imperfect state of the world, my friends.</ref> but also the [[known unknowns|known ''unknowns'']] and to be aware, and responsible for, the [[Unknown unknown|''unknown'' unknown]]s. Only where you encounter a known unknown should the business get on the phone to legal, but the outcome of that advice is ''for the business to acquire another [[known known]]''.
*The business should therefore know not just [[known known|''known'' known]]s <ref>And the [[unknown known]]s, but [[QED]] it ''does not'' know those. Such is the imperfect state of the world, my friends.</ref> but also the [[known unknowns|known ''unknowns'']] and understand it is responsible for the [[Unknown unknown|''unknown'' unknown]]s. Only where it encounters a [[known unknown]] should the business get on the phone to legal, but the outcome of that advice is ''for the business to acquire another [[known known]]''.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Systemantics]]
*[[Systemantics]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 13:20, 9 December 2022

In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
The Devil’s Advocate
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

A founding, fundamental point, but one lost in our disintermediated, siloed age: the ultimate owner of legal risk is not legal, but the business. Legal simply advises the business on the legal risk. Business makes the call.

In the same way your family solicitor advises you when asked. It’s up to you to seek advice, and up to you whether to follow it.

Some counterintuitive implications of this:

  • The business should make legal calls within normal operating parameters (the “BAU”), as it is responsible should it get them wrong, the same way you are responsible if you accidentally shoplift, or drive on the wrong side of the road. Your lawyer doesn’t go to jail; you do.
  • The business should read the whole contract. Yes, the whole contract. Like, what? Sure. You are taking responsibility for everything in it, after all (see above). Why wouldn’t you read it? Are you just going to take it on faith from the legal eagles? They have no dog in the fight. If it’s a bad contract, you lose. There is room here for an extended essay on “how things have got to this pretty pass, in which a business person with a decent liberal education is yet not not reasonably capable of understanding a legal contract” — and rent-seeking legal eagles do play a role in that story, but we will save it for another day.
  • The business should therefore know not just known knowns [1] but also the known unknowns and understand it is responsible for the unknown unknowns. Only where it encounters a known unknown should the business get on the phone to legal, but the outcome of that advice is for the business to acquire another known known.

See also

References

  1. ↑ And the unknown knowns, but QED it does not know those. Such is the imperfect state of the world, my friends.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=The_business_owns_legal_issues&oldid=69852"