Acknowledgement

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 13:29, 14 August 2024 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Representations and Warranties Anatomy™
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

An acknowledgement is a representation from the point of view of someone who doesn’t believe his counterpart is listening.

But here is the funny thing. A representation, as as every student of the law knows, is a pre-contractual statement in reliance upon which a merchant enters the contract. It is not a term of the contract — that would be a warranty.

A representation relies on the representor having heard it and relied on it before entering into the contract. A warranty is coded into the contract. By coding the representee’s acknowledgement into the act of signing the contract — its acceptance of it — you convert a pre-contractual skirmish into a fully fledged warranty.

And what is so bad about that? you might ask. Nothing — verily, given the likelihood these days of any legal action flowing from a civil[1] interaction, civil or otherwise, really, nothing — but purists might like to consider that the remedies for breach of a pre-contractual representation — namely, avoiding the contract; putting the parties back in the position they were in before this whole ghastly business started — are quite different from those for a breach of contract — where a misbehaving merchant must put his innocent counterpart in the position the latter would have been in had the contract been performed properly all along.

See also

References

  1. As in, “not criminal”, and not just “polite, and having due regard to prevailing etiquette”.