83,489
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
It is a precision tool to allocate responsibility for a narrow risk, not a weapon of mass destruction. | It is a precision tool to allocate responsibility for a narrow risk, not a weapon of mass destruction. | ||
===You keep saying “''well-crafted'' | ===You keep saying “[[well-crafted indemnity|''well-crafted'' indemnity]]”=== | ||
Yes, [[I]] do. This is where things have gone awry. Many latter-day [[indemnities]] are not well-crafted at all. | Yes, [[I]] do. This is where things have gone awry. Many latter-day [[indemnities]] are not well-crafted at all. Often they try to catch every contingency under the sun: “any and all losses, costs and damages, howsoever arising, incurred or suffered in diligent performance of the contract”. Magnanimous ones might let the [[indemnifying party]] off those losses caused by the [[indemnified party]]’s [[negligence, fraud or wilful default]], but that’s [[Negligence, fraud or wilful default|another story]]. | ||
In any case, such a wide indemnity suggests your | In any case, such a wide indemnity suggests your counterparty has not grasped the fundamentals of the commercial bargain: [[Indemnities]] are not meant for the ordinary costs of one’s performance of a contract. That is called ''[[consideration]]''. It is why the other fellow is making a bargain with you in the first place. You’re meant to just pay that, and be grateful. | ||
===What ''are'' fit topics for an indemnity then?=== | ===What ''are'' fit topics for an indemnity then?=== |