|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A representation that transgresses the very first rule of [[representations and warranties]], which is that they are meant to be about matters of private, present ''[[fact]]'', known to the representor but not the representee, but about which the representee cares a lot, and which might colour its decision to enter the {{t|contract}} in the first place.
| |
|
| |
|
| Since the representee knows these things, the representor doesn’t, and they’re just facts, it can safely make representations about them to the representee to make it feel better.
| |
|
| |
| But there are no such matters of private fact involved when one represents one’s obligations under a [[contract]] are binding: a [[contract]] is either valid and binding on a party or it isn’t; this isn’t the sort of thing that one party can conceal from the other. Indeed; whether a contract is valid and binding is ''not'' a question of fact ''at all'': it’s a question of ''law''.
| |
|
| |
| It, therefore, requires an ''[[legal opinion|opinion]]'', from one qualified to give such an opinion. The person who can attest to these is a special fellow. A boy wizard. A [[legal eagle]]. If you want to know whether your agreement is binding, don’t ask the counterparty; ask [[legal]].
| |
|
| |
| The [[Obligations binding - Representation|obligations binding]] representation offends another principle of contractual representation, too: it is a ''pre-contractual'' statement as to a ''legal'' state of affairs which, by definition, ''has not yet come about''. The “bindingness” of the contract is not a ''present'' fact at the time this representation is made. Representations as to the expected state of the world in the future are not generally called “representations”. They are called “''[[promise|promises]]''”.
| |
|
| |
| And yet there is more: if it is, somehow, a ''post''-contractual [[representation]],<ref>These things are normally called “[[warranties]]”.</ref> albeit about a ''notionally'' current state of affairs,<ref>I am struggling with this, readers, I am. [[Deemed]] current, perhaps?</ref> it presents some kind of existential {{t|paradox}} or state of undecidability that not even Kurt Gödel can let us out of. For if this [[warranty]] is wrong, then the contract it lives in, [[QED]], is invalid — that is to say, for all intents and purposes, does not exist, ''including this warranty''. So precisely when you need to rely on it, you find it has vanished like some kind of that Schrödinger’s cat.
| |