Worst reasonable efforts: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|}} | {{a|plainenglish|}}Few 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 memorialisation by covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for [[gross negligence]] is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, no more than a commitment not to be outright [[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 | 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 high-jump clearance that leaves the bar a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; a leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail. | ||
It sounds like a satire; a gentle perversion of the basic premise of good faith commerce — all rigfht, it ''is'' one of those — but still, it is the operating theory behind outsourcing. It is this precise villainy that the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the tacit knowledge that business model of any business that sub-contracts services at scale ones is explicitly based on the delivering as close to the naked minimum requirement as one humanly can without shipping legitimate complaint: on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria, and not a whisker more, of the contract. | |||
This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]] | This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]] and we will, if we really must, honour it — but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to, to discharge it: we will delay, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence, misdirect our responses and at every turn raise spurious objections in the hope of so sapping your will to carry on that you won’t. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 18:29, 3 February 2022
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Few 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 memorialisation by covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for gross negligence is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, no more than a commitment not to be outright 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 high-jump clearance that leaves the bar a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; a leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
It sounds like a satire; a gentle perversion of the basic premise of good faith commerce — all rigfht, it is one of those — but still, it is the operating theory behind outsourcing. It is this precise villainy that the service level agreement addresses: the tacit knowledge that business model of any business that sub-contracts services at scale ones is explicitly based on the delivering as close to the naked minimum requirement as one humanly can without shipping legitimate complaint: on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria, and not a whisker more, of the contract.
This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a fiduciary obligation and we will, if we really must, honour it — but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to, to discharge it: we will delay, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence, misdirect our responses and at every turn raise spurious objections in the hope of so sapping your will to carry on that you won’t.