Template:Emissions No Encumbrances summ

There are times when you wonder whether the crack drafting squad™ for first conceived of this — we think it was IETA’s, but you never know — didn’t fall through some wormhole into a parallel, more paranoid, universe, when drafting their hypotheticals. What, honestly, is going on here? Take a crumb comfort from the fact that the drafting is more or less the same which ever master agreement form you are using.

What a shower. There will seldom come a time where a nutshell version of a clause would come in more handy, readers. If only you subscribed to the premium version of the JC you would have one. It is partly a case of shambolic conceptual organisation, partly ropey drafting, but this clause makes an omnishambles of a fairly straightforward concept.

You might struggle to believe it from reading the clause, but what happens is this: if {{{{{1}}}|Delivering Party}} delivers {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} in fragrant disregard of the fact that some random has a claim on them, and {{{{{1}}} |Receiving Party}} finds out — presumably by means of an angry letter from said random — {{{{{1}}} |Receiving Party}} can send {{{{{1}}} |Delivering Party}} a notice, calculate its loss (which we suppose would be the market value of any {{{{{1}}} |Allowances}} it has to account to said angry, letter-writing random) and send an invoice. {{{{{1}}} |Delivering Party}} has three {{{{{1}}} |Banking Days}} to pay, with interest. Once paid, that’s it, everyone moves on. Though there is an odd caveat that this procedure is without prejudice to any defences {{{{{1}}} |Delivering Party}} might have, including ones based on limitation periods — which makes us think the responsible crack drafting squad™ had some morbid fear of calumnies buried deep in ancient history coming back to bite them.

Note: contractual limitation periods run from the point where the cause of action arises, not when you reasonably could know you have suffered a loss.