Template:Barnacles: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call “[[barnacle|barnacles]]” — ''ad hoc'' responses to historic situations, anecdotal reactions to unexpected risks, [[flannel]]esque flourishes to placate a truculent or obtuse counterparty | Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call “[[barnacle|barnacles]]” — ''ad hoc'' responses to historic situations, anecdotal reactions to unexpected risks, [[flannel]]esque flourishes to placate a truculent or obtuse or just downright [[Who’s Queen|''stubborn'' counterparty]] — no-one likes them, but if your client insists on redundant (or misconceived) terms (“[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”; “[[without limitation]]” — that kind of thing) the pragmatic response is to agree them and move toward execution. | ||
These [[barnacles]] have a habit of finding their way into, and encrusting, negotiation templates. And, as people move on, their original justification — if there even was one — becomes lost to time. The instinct of successive [[risk controller|risk controllers]] upon encountering them will be, “I don't know why that is there, but whoever put it in must have had a reason<ref>Not necessarily so. Just as likely to be miscoonception. As to which, see [[indemnity]].</ref>, so the safest thing is to leave it there.” | These [[barnacles]] have a habit of finding their way into, and encrusting, negotiation templates. And, as people move on, their original justification — if there even was one — becomes lost to time. The instinct of successive [[risk controller|risk controllers]] upon encountering them will be, “I don't know why that is there, but whoever put it in must have had a reason<ref>Not necessarily so. Just as likely to be miscoonception. As to which, see [[indemnity]].</ref>, so the safest thing is to leave it there.” | ||
This will lead to complexity in templates, additional length of templates and a proliferation of different templates. <br> | This will lead to complexity in templates, additional length of templates and a proliferation of different templates. <br> | ||
Revision as of 11:25, 3 June 2019
Over time contract templates will inevitably accumulate what I call “barnacles” — ad hoc responses to historic situations, anecdotal reactions to unexpected risks, flannelesque flourishes to placate a truculent or obtuse or just downright stubborn counterparty — no-one likes them, but if your client insists on redundant (or misconceived) terms (“for the avoidance of doubt”; “without limitation” — that kind of thing) the pragmatic response is to agree them and move toward execution.
These barnacles have a habit of finding their way into, and encrusting, negotiation templates. And, as people move on, their original justification — if there even was one — becomes lost to time. The instinct of successive risk controllers upon encountering them will be, “I don't know why that is there, but whoever put it in must have had a reason[1], so the safest thing is to leave it there.”
This will lead to complexity in templates, additional length of templates and a proliferation of different templates.