Contract and tort as finite and infinite games: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|design|}}Contract does not care how well you mean, just whether you met standard
{{a|design|}}{{Drop|A|contract does}} not care how ''well'' you meant, just whether you met a minimum standard. Now JC often bemoans those who apply sporting [[Metaphor|metaphors]] to commerce: zero-sum games have little to tell us about the infinite games of business — but occasionally sporting metaphors apply.


The rules of [[tennis]] care not whether you flubbed the ball off the frame or ripped it savagely from the middle of the string bed, but ''whether it went over the net and into the court'', and thereafter cares nothing beyond whether your opponent managed to hit it back — and again, with how much form, style or cunning is not the point.  
To wit — the rules of [[tennis]] care not whether you flubbed the ball off the frame or ripped it savagely from the middle of the string bed: only ''whether it went over the net and into the court.'' Thereafter it cares nothing beyond whether your opponent managed to hit it back — and again, with how much form, style or cunning is not the point.  


In one sense, the JC approves: this is the ultimate in substance over form, and in a world which bureaucratises the prefer the formal, it is something we should all be glad about. But surely there is a difference between form and style. It may be true that MacEnroe beat Borg on that sweltering Wimbledon day in 1982, but is that mark in the win column what the world remembers? When we trot down to the court for our weekly hit with the sclerotic old fogies that can be bothered to take us on, is it the outcome, or the moments of drama we go through in getting there, however inexpert, that we savour?
In one sense, the JC approves: this is the ultimate in substance over form, and in a bureaucratic world which the prefers the formal to the substantial, it is something we should all be glad about.


We make no bones about it: the JC’s most effective shots are ungainly shanks that scrape over the net at a right angle to the direction in which they were aimed. But one in twenty comes off as hoped and that is enough to keep him coming back, even if these are not usually the ones that win the points.
''But''.


It is the same with a transactional contract. (Here we distinguish a ''[[Relationship contract|relationship]]'' contract, being one of those architectural arrangements under which we set ourselves up so that we might in later times, if the mood catches us, transact. These are, by nature, designed with infinity in mind.)
Surely there is a difference between form and style. It may be true that McEnroe beat Borg on that sweltering Wimbledon day in 1982, but is it just a mark in the win column that the world remembers? When we trot down to the court for our weekly hit with the sclerotic old fogies that can be bothered to take us on, is it the outcome, or the moments of drama we go through in getting there, however inexpert, that we savour?


Likewise, a transactional contract sets out tersely who should do what and by when. Once inked, it is a set of rules designed to wipe out any doubt. It cares nothing for form: not how diligent one’s preparation, honorable one’s intention, acumen but whether the outcome you agreed to deliver came about. This is the allocation of risk: if I have sold my motor vehicle to you, it is not your problem it is stolen from me, and more than it is mine that your fairy godmother has given you a new car, the night before delivery. We have set our rules and we must go ahead with it.
We make no bones about it: [[JC]]’s most effective shots are ungainly shanks that scrape over the net in a direction sharply oblique to the one in which they were aimed. But one in twenty comes off as hoped and that is enough to keep him coming back, even if these are not usually the ones that win the points.


A contract is a [[finite game]] in the broader [[infinite game]] of commercial life. It is  as if you have pegged off a rectangle, agreed upon some rules and must now batter the subject matter back and forth to the terms of the agreement, abiding by the laws you have laid down until everyone has done what they said they would do. There is even a referee of sorts, though the cost of engaging VAR  is usually beyond the proportions of the contest.
===== Contracts =====
{{drop|I|t is the}} same with a transactional contract. (Here we distinguish a ''[[Relationship contract|relationship]]'' contract, being one of those architectural arrangements under which we set ourselves up so that we might in later times, if the mood catches us, transact. These are, by nature, designed with infinity in mind.)


In contract, there is always scope for a [[cheapest to deliver]] strategy — in the confines of a sporting contest it is explicitly the best strategy, within a single contract it is rationally the best strategy.
A transactional contract sets out tersely who should do what and by when. Once inked, it is a set of rules designed to wipe out any [[doubt]]. It cares nothing for form: not how diligent one’s preparation nor how honourable one’s intention is: only ''whether the outcome you agreed to deliver came about''.


Compare this with [[tort]]. When strangers meet, there being ''no'' prior agreement between them as to who must does what, the law of civil wrongs intervenes. Here Tort cares little about outcome but intention and defensibility of conduct.
This is the allocation of risk: if I have sold you my car, it is not your problem if, the night before delivery, someone steals it from me, any more than it is my problem if your fairy godmother unexpectedly gives you a new car so you don’t need the one you bought from me. We have agreed our rules and we must go ahead with it.


In this regard, just as a zero-sum contest like a sport is an infinite game so is a specific transaction contract. But ''not'' a framework contract. And the law of sort sets the ground runs for an infinite game.
A contract is a [[finite game]] in the broader [[infinite game]] of commercial life. It is as if we have pegged off a rectangle, agreed upon some rules and must now batter the subject matter back and forth to the terms of the agreement, abiding by the laws you have laid down until everyone has done what they said they would do. There is even a referee, of sorts, though the cost of engaging it is usually beyond the proportions of the contest.
 
In a transactional contract, there is always scope for a [[cheapest to deliver]] strategy — in the confines of a sporting contest it is explicitly the ''best'' strategy, within a single contract it is rationally the best strategy.
 
===== Torts =====
{{drop|C|ompare this with}} [[tort]]. When strangers meet, there is ''no'' prior agreement between them as to who must do what. So the law of civil wrongs intervenes. Unlike contract, tort cares little about the substantive outcome, as long as the formal process — one’s intention and the defensibility of one’s conduct — in getting to it.
 
In this regard, just as a zero-sum contest like a sport is an [[finite game]] so is a specific [[transaction]].  
 
But ''not'' a [[relationship contract]]. And the law of tort sets the ground runs for an infinite game.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[VAR as a metaphor for litigation]]
*[[VAR as a metaphor for litigation]]
{{Nld}}
{{Nld}}

Revision as of 11:47, 7 September 2024

The design of organisations and products
Index: Click to expand:
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.

Acontract does not care how well you meant, just whether you met a minimum standard. Now JC often bemoans those who apply sporting metaphors to commerce: zero-sum games have little to tell us about the infinite games of business — but occasionally sporting metaphors apply.

To wit — the rules of tennis care not whether you flubbed the ball off the frame or ripped it savagely from the middle of the string bed: only whether it went over the net and into the court. Thereafter it cares nothing beyond whether your opponent managed to hit it back — and again, with how much form, style or cunning is not the point.

In one sense, the JC approves: this is the ultimate in substance over form, and in a bureaucratic world which the prefers the formal to the substantial, it is something we should all be glad about.

But.

Surely there is a difference between form and style. It may be true that McEnroe beat Borg on that sweltering Wimbledon day in 1982, but is it just a mark in the win column that the world remembers? When we trot down to the court for our weekly hit with the sclerotic old fogies that can be bothered to take us on, is it the outcome, or the moments of drama we go through in getting there, however inexpert, that we savour?

We make no bones about it: JC’s most effective shots are ungainly shanks that scrape over the net in a direction sharply oblique to the one in which they were aimed. But one in twenty comes off as hoped and that is enough to keep him coming back, even if these are not usually the ones that win the points.

Contracts

It is the same with a transactional contract. (Here we distinguish a relationship contract, being one of those architectural arrangements under which we set ourselves up so that we might in later times, if the mood catches us, transact. These are, by nature, designed with infinity in mind.)

A transactional contract sets out tersely who should do what and by when. Once inked, it is a set of rules designed to wipe out any doubt. It cares nothing for form: not how diligent one’s preparation nor how honourable one’s intention is: only whether the outcome you agreed to deliver came about.

This is the allocation of risk: if I have sold you my car, it is not your problem if, the night before delivery, someone steals it from me, any more than it is my problem if your fairy godmother unexpectedly gives you a new car so you don’t need the one you bought from me. We have agreed our rules and we must go ahead with it.

A contract is a finite game in the broader infinite game of commercial life. It is as if we have pegged off a rectangle, agreed upon some rules and must now batter the subject matter back and forth to the terms of the agreement, abiding by the laws you have laid down until everyone has done what they said they would do. There is even a referee, of sorts, though the cost of engaging it is usually beyond the proportions of the contest.

In a transactional contract, there is always scope for a cheapest to deliver strategy — in the confines of a sporting contest it is explicitly the best strategy, within a single contract it is rationally the best strategy.

Torts

Compare this with tort. When strangers meet, there is no prior agreement between them as to who must do what. So the law of civil wrongs intervenes. Unlike contract, tort cares little about the substantive outcome, as long as the formal process — one’s intention and the defensibility of one’s conduct — in getting to it.

In this regard, just as a zero-sum contest like a sport is an finite game so is a specific transaction.

But not a relationship contract. And the law of tort sets the ground runs for an infinite game.

See also