Worst reasonable efforts: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|plainenglish|}}No-one can dress up a nonsense in finery like we goshawks of the law: to “endeavour” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|}}No-one can dress up a nonsense in finery like we goshawks of the law: to “[[endeavour]]” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for [[gross negligence]] is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, a promise not to be [[reckless]] in the service of one’s customers. | {{a|plainenglish|}}No-one can dress up a nonsense in finery like we [[Legal eagle|goshawks of the law]]: to “[[endeavour]]” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for [[gross negligence]] is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, a promise not to be [[reckless]] in the service of one’s customers. | ||
And if we can commit to our best reasonable efforts — why not something less than that? How about our ''worst'' reasonable efforts? A [[cheapest-to-deliver]]; a clearance that leaves the bar jangling a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; the leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail. | |||
This is the operating theory of most outsourcers. It is the villainy the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the knowledge that ones business model is predicated on the most naked minimum required, on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria of the contract. | |||
This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, we have a ficudiary obligation, but we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to do discharge it. We will delay, ignore correspondence and raise spurious objections, in the hope that their combined effect will be to so sap your will that you will not pursue your claim. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[service level agreement]] | |||
*[[Gross negligence]] | *[[Gross negligence]] | ||
*[[Best reasonable efforts]] | *[[Best reasonable efforts]] | ||
*[[Endeavour]] | *[[Endeavour]] | ||
Revision as of 11:06, 2 February 2022
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
No-one can dress up a nonsense in finery like we goshawks of the law: to “endeavour” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for gross negligence is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, a promise not to be reckless in the service of one’s customers.
And if we can commit to our best reasonable efforts — why not something less than that? How about our worst reasonable efforts? A cheapest-to-deliver; a clearance that leaves the bar jangling a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; the leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
This is the operating theory of most outsourcers. It is the villainy the service level agreement addresses: the knowledge that ones business model is predicated on the most naked minimum required, on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria of the contract.
This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, we have a ficudiary obligation, but we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to do discharge it. We will delay, ignore correspondence and raise spurious objections, in the hope that their combined effect will be to so sap your will that you will not pursue your claim.