Legal: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: the law [[supposes|deemed]] you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is a virtue. | But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: the law [[supposes|deemed]] you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is a virtue. | ||
“Legal will need to say when the {{tag|contract}} is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “[[Legal]]” ''can'' opine, of course — nothing gives “[[Legal]]” greater pleasure than sounding off on [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[invitation to treat]] or weighing in on whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is an independent ingredient of the ''[[consensus ad idem]]''<ref> | “Legal will need to say when the {{tag|contract}} is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “[[Legal]]” ''can'' opine, of course — nothing gives “[[Legal]]” greater pleasure than sounding off on [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[invitation to treat]] or weighing in on whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is an independent ingredient of the ''[[consensus ad idem]]''<ref>And here, as ever, your devoted correspondent finds himself drifting free of the moorings of legal consensus. For whatever the learned academics and our storied magistrates, in their exposition of the [[common law]]’s golden stream, may previously have said, it is ''not''. [[Intention to create legal relations]] is ''the inference you draw'' from an [[accept]]ed [[offer]] supported by [[consideration]].</ref>. But {{tag|contract formation}} is not alchemy: you do it without pause at the supermarket checkout and when you press a copper into your newsagent’s mitten. | ||
Nor can you hedge on the question until your [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]] arrives. It is binary — and this is a matter of logic, not law — for either there ''is'' a contract, or there ''isn’t''. There is no purgatorial state between. It’s like being pregnant. So it won’t do to defer the question to legal. Before you even have a chance to ask [[Legal]] you have made a call: if you are not prepared to say there ''is'', you are asserting there is ''not''. | Nor can you hedge on the question until your [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]] arrives. It is binary — and this is a matter of logic, not law — for either there ''is'' a contract, or there ''isn’t''. There is no purgatorial state between. It’s like being pregnant. So it won’t do to defer the question to legal. Before you even have a chance to ask [[Legal]] you have made a call: if you are not prepared to say there ''is'', you are asserting there is ''not''. | ||
Revision as of 16:58, 11 March 2019
I am a human being
The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, Legal”[1].
Help me, Legal
The words “I cannot say: you’ll have to ask legal” drop like scented jewels from the lips of colleagues who can’t be bothered — or are too scared — to make a simple decision by themselves. No-one likes making decisions in modern multinationals: no individual good comes of it, however much collective good may follow[2].
But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, none of them are: the law deemed you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is a virtue.
“Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “Legal” can opine, of course — nothing gives “Legal” greater pleasure than sounding off on offer, acceptance and invitation to treat or weighing in on whether the intention to create legal relations is an independent ingredient of the consensus ad idem[3]. But contract formation is not alchemy: you do it without pause at the supermarket checkout and when you press a copper into your newsagent’s mitten.
Nor can you hedge on the question until your lawyer arrives. It is binary — and this is a matter of logic, not law — for either there is a contract, or there isn’t. There is no purgatorial state between. It’s like being pregnant. So it won’t do to defer the question to legal. Before you even have a chance to ask Legal you have made a call: if you are not prepared to say there is, you are asserting there is not.
See also
Dramatis personae: CEO | CFO | Client | Employees: Divers · Excuse pre-loaders · Survivors · Contractors · The Muppet Show | Middle management: COO · Consultant · MBA | Controllers: Financial reporting | Risk | Credit | Operations | IT | Legal: GC · Inhouse counsel · Docs unit · Litigator · Tax lawyer · US attorney Lawyer | Front office: Trading | Structuring | Sales |
References
- ↑ There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as honed sarcasm, as in the phrase “Hi, Legal Eagles!!!”
- ↑ Individual good comes from taking credit for decisions made once they have safely borne fruit, not from taking a view.
- ↑ And here, as ever, your devoted correspondent finds himself drifting free of the moorings of legal consensus. For whatever the learned academics and our storied magistrates, in their exposition of the common law’s golden stream, may previously have said, it is not. Intention to create legal relations is the inference you draw from an accepted offer supported by consideration.