Worst reasonable efforts: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
This is the operating theory of most outsourcers. It is the villainy the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the knowledge that ones business model is predicated on the most naked minimum required, on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria of the contract. | This is the operating theory of most outsourcers. It is the villainy the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the knowledge that ones business model is predicated on the most naked minimum required, on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria of the contract. | ||
This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, we have a | This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]], and we will if need be honour it, but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to do discharge it: we will delay, misdirect, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence and raise spurious objections, in the hope of so sapping your will that you will not pursue your claim. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 11:09, 2 February 2022
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
No-one can dress up a nonsense in finery like we goshawks of the law: to “endeavour” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for gross negligence is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, a promise not to be reckless in the service of one’s customers.
And if we can commit to our best reasonable efforts — why not something less than that? How about our worst reasonable efforts? A cheapest-to-deliver; a clearance that leaves the bar jangling a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; the leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
This is the operating theory of most outsourcers. It is the villainy the service level agreement addresses: the knowledge that ones business model is predicated on the most naked minimum required, on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria of the contract.
This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a fiduciary obligation, and we will if need be honour it, but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to do discharge it: we will delay, misdirect, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence and raise spurious objections, in the hope of so sapping your will that you will not pursue your claim.