Conclusive evidence clause: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|glossary|[[File: | {{a|glossary| | ||
[[File:Dramatic Chipmunk.png|450px|thumb|center|Did someone say ... ''[[indemnities]]''?]]}}Any finance lawyer will be familiar with the following kind of clause: | |||
''{{quote|In the absence of [[manifest error]], a [[certificate of indebtedness|certificate]] from the [[Lender]] as to any amount due will be [[conclusive evidence]] of the amount owing.}}'' | ''{{quote|In the absence of [[manifest error]], a [[certificate of indebtedness|certificate]] from the [[Lender]] as to any amount due will be [[conclusive evidence]] of the amount owing.}}'' | ||
[[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support — [[dramatic look gopher]] — ''[[indemnities]]''. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in [[indemnities]] [[Indemnity|in the usual place]]<ref>Go on — honestly — you’ll love it: {{t|Indemnity}}</ref> but the key point to remember is that, a ''well-crafted'' {{tag|indemnity}}<ref>Much talked about, seldom seen.</ref> is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ''ascertainable sum'' of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what | [[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support — [[dramatic look gopher]] — ''[[indemnities]]''. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in [[indemnities]] [[Indemnity|in the usual place]]<ref>Go on — honestly — you’ll love it: {{t|Indemnity}}</ref> but the key point to remember is that, a ''[[well-crafted indemnity|well-crafted]]'' {{tag|indemnity}}<ref>Much talked about, seldom seen.</ref> is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ''ascertainable sum'' of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what will have to be paid out. | ||
Thus you will see that tell-tale [[caveat]]: “in the absence of [[manifest error]]”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they sent out a certificate containing obviously the wrong number. Well, clearly that’s not conclusive, right? | Of course, as we well know, most [[indemnities]] are ''not'' well-crafted, but will be hopelessly vague, woolly, all-you-can-possibly-think-of affairs — just the kind of thing that ''isn’t'' “readily ascertainable”, at least not without the need for the a full adversarial process, with a day’s cross examination from Sir Jerrold Buxomley Q.C., to thrash them out. | ||
Thus, you will see that tell-tale [[caveat]]: “in the absence of [[manifest error]]”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they sent out a certificate containing obviously the wrong number. Well, clearly that’s not conclusive, right? | |||
In the traditional banking world — the one where lenders are prudent community pillars, obtain only the indemnities they need and that can be justified before a jury of their peers, and borrowers understand their place in the world — this is all straightforward: A banker ''ought'' to know how much {{sex|she}} is owed, and how much interest, and how it compounds, and ought not to be subjected to a tedious back-and-forth with a mendacious borrower trying prolong process of paying. That sort of carry-on only benefits one person, as we all know, O dear [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. | In the traditional banking world — the one where lenders are prudent community pillars, obtain only the indemnities they need and that can be justified before a jury of their peers, and borrowers understand their place in the world — this is all straightforward: A banker ''ought'' to know how much {{sex|she}} is owed, and how much interest, and how it compounds, and ought not to be subjected to a tedious back-and-forth with a mendacious borrower trying prolong process of paying. That sort of carry-on only benefits one person, as we all know, O dear [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. | ||
Revision as of 16:01, 31 July 2019
|
Any finance lawyer will be familiar with the following kind of clause:
In the absence of manifest error, a certificate from the Lender as to any amount due will be conclusive evidence of the amount owing.
Conclusive evidence clauses are meant to support — dramatic look gopher — indemnities. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in indemnities in the usual place[1] but the key point to remember is that, a well-crafted indemnity[2] is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ascertainable sum of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what will have to be paid out.
Of course, as we well know, most indemnities are not well-crafted, but will be hopelessly vague, woolly, all-you-can-possibly-think-of affairs — just the kind of thing that isn’t “readily ascertainable”, at least not without the need for the a full adversarial process, with a day’s cross examination from Sir Jerrold Buxomley Q.C., to thrash them out.
Thus, you will see that tell-tale caveat: “in the absence of manifest error”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they sent out a certificate containing obviously the wrong number. Well, clearly that’s not conclusive, right?
In the traditional banking world — the one where lenders are prudent community pillars, obtain only the indemnities they need and that can be justified before a jury of their peers, and borrowers understand their place in the world — this is all straightforward: A banker ought to know how much she is owed, and how much interest, and how it compounds, and ought not to be subjected to a tedious back-and-forth with a mendacious borrower trying prolong process of paying. That sort of carry-on only benefits one person, as we all know, O dear attorney.
But, alas, we do not live in such sensible times. The banking world is populated by idiots. These days indemnities are thrown around willy-nilly in the capital markets business, to cover all kinds of stupidly indeterminate, inappropriate things. It will not shock an experienced counsel to see an indemnity claimed for “any and all losses, costs, damages, liabilities, disbursements, expenses claims of whatever kind we may experience at any time merely as a function of drawing a breath”.
This is outrageous, if only in its silliness, but well paid members of the legal profession will defend it to the hilt, which they will try to bury in someone's back.
Eventually, even one with a love of principle over common sense such as I will feel cowed and will give in. Life is too short.
But, good luck enforcing that kind of indemnity. And, really, good luck trying to stick in a clause saying “In the absence of manifest error, a certificate from the Lender as to any such “Loss” will be conclusive evidence of the amount owing” and getting a court to pay it any attention.