Written contract: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
what you mean is a “[[contract]] memorialised in writing”. A {{tag|contract}} is — in [[Daniel Dennett]]’s marvelous term — “substrate-neutral”. The paper on which a contract’s terms are set out is a record of an immaterial thing. The paper is the cave wall; the contract is the Platonic form. This might seem a fatuous distinction — especially where someone has had the sense to provide that the written thing is a comprehensive and final record of the parties’ respective obligations<ref>“This [[agreement]] supersedes all previous agreements, written or oral, between the parties on the subject matter to which it relates” — that kind of thing.</ref> or where the [[No oral modification|contract may not be varied but by further written agreement]] — but it can help navigate your way out of odd situations such as those where the parties think they have signed an agreement but haven't, or they did sign the agreement, but have subsequently lost it. | what you mean is a “[[contract]] memorialised in writing”. A {{tag|contract}} is — in [[Daniel Dennett]]’s marvelous term — “substrate-neutral”. The paper on which a contract’s terms are set out is a record of an immaterial thing. The paper is the cave wall; the contract is the Platonic form. This might seem a fatuous distinction — especially where someone has had the sense to provide that the written thing is a [[Entire agreement|comprehensive and final record of the parties’ respective obligations]]<ref>“This [[agreement]] supersedes all previous agreements, written or oral, between the parties on the subject matter to which it relates” — that kind of thing.</ref> or where the [[No oral modification|contract may not be varied but by further written agreement]] — but it can help navigate your way out of odd situations such as those where the parties think they have signed an agreement but haven't, or they did sign the agreement, but have subsequently lost it. | ||
Both happen. | Both happen. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Scribam, ergo salvum sum]] | *[[Scribam, ergo salvum sum]] | ||
*[[Entire agreement]] | |||
*[[No oral modification]] | *[[No oral modification]] | ||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 09:47, 23 May 2019
what you mean is a “contract memorialised in writing”. A contract is — in Daniel Dennett’s marvelous term — “substrate-neutral”. The paper on which a contract’s terms are set out is a record of an immaterial thing. The paper is the cave wall; the contract is the Platonic form. This might seem a fatuous distinction — especially where someone has had the sense to provide that the written thing is a comprehensive and final record of the parties’ respective obligations[1] or where the contract may not be varied but by further written agreement — but it can help navigate your way out of odd situations such as those where the parties think they have signed an agreement but haven't, or they did sign the agreement, but have subsequently lost it.
Both happen.