Third party: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|cosmology|}}If we take it it as granted, per the experimental [[lexophysics]] of pioneers such as [[J.F | {{a|cosmology|}}If we take it it as granted, per the experimental [[lexophysics]] of pioneers such as [[J. M. F. Biggs]] that traditional Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe the [[space-tedium continuum]], with its in-folded [[incluso]]s, [[proviso]]s, [[proviso]]s, then we have to consider whether the usual three-dimensional model of the legal universe is still fit for purpose. | ||
A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“[[Party A]]” and “[[Party B]]” or, for old fashioned finance types, “[[Bank]]” and “[[Borrower]]”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties. | A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“[[Party A]]” and “[[Party B]]” or, for old fashioned finance types, “[[Bank]]” and “[[Borrower]]”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties. | ||
Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]]. The idea was to confer upon ''third'' parties some of [[fruits of the contract]] where the first and second parties deliberately intended it. This could make a third party some kind of second and a half party as if reduced by some fractal proportion. | ||
Revision as of 19:45, 3 December 2022
|
If we take it it as granted, per the experimental lexophysics of pioneers such as J. M. F. Biggs that traditional Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe the space-tedium continuum, with its in-folded inclusos, provisos, provisos, then we have to consider whether the usual three-dimensional model of the legal universe is still fit for purpose.
A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“Party A” and “Party B” or, for old fashioned finance types, “Bank” and “Borrower”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties.
Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The idea was to confer upon third parties some of fruits of the contract where the first and second parties deliberately intended it. This could make a third party some kind of second and a half party as if reduced by some fractal proportion.