Difference between revisions of "Absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction"

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{pe}}This lumpen phrase has found its way into the derivatives canon.  
 
{{pe}}This lumpen phrase has found its way into the derivatives canon.  
Google “[[absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction]]”, in quotes <ref>{{google1|absent+a+written+agreement+between+the+parties+that+expressly+imposes+affirmative+obligations+to+the+contrary+for+that+transaction}}: you’ll need to supply your own quotation marks.</ref>, if you don't believe me. There are 2000 hits for this exact phrase. By contrast "Last night, I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got in my pyjamas, I'll never know"<ref>{{google1|Last+night,+I+shot+an+elephant+in+my+pyjamas.+How+he+got+in+my+pyjamas,+I'll+never+know}}: you’ll need to supply your own quotation marks.</ref> garners only 4,000 hits.
+
Google “[[absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction]]”, in quotes <ref>{{google1|absent+a+written+agreement+between+the+parties+that+expressly+imposes+affirmative+obligations+to+the+contrary+for+that+transaction}}: you’ll need to supply your own quotation marks.</ref>, if you don't believe me. There are 2000 hits for this exact phrase.  
 +
 
 +
By contrast, "Last night, I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got in my pyjamas, I'll never know"<ref>{{google1|Last+night,+I+shot+an+elephant+in+my+pyjamas.+How+he+got+in+my+pyjamas,+I'll+never+know}}: you’ll need to supply your own quotation marks.</ref> garners only 4,000 hits.
  
 
HOW CAN THIS PHRASE BE HALF AS POPULAR AS ONE OF GROUCHO MARX'S GREATEST LINES?
 
HOW CAN THIS PHRASE BE HALF AS POPULAR AS ONE OF GROUCHO MARX'S GREATEST LINES?
Line 8: Line 10:
 
:“a written agreement between the parties” => “''we agree''”
 
:“a written agreement between the parties” => “''we agree''”
 
:“that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary”  => “''otherwise''”
 
:“that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary”  => “''otherwise''”
:“for that transaction” => “”
+
:“for that transaction” => “ ”
 +
 
 +
This is, in other words, a long-winded way of saying “[[unless agreed otherwise]]”.
  
This is, in other words, a long-winded way of saying “unless we agree otherwise”.
+
Now, a {{t|contract}} is simply a legally binding agreement. Nothing ''but'' a legally binding agreement. As long as one party is happy with the arrangement, the other is stuck with it.  
  
Not wishing to get all legal-techie on you, but a legal contract is an agreement. Nothing but an agreement. It is axiomatic that the parties to it may change their minds. If they agree to do something different, that is that. If contractual counterparties “agree otherwise”, then otherwise it must be. ''One need not say this''.
+
But it is axiomatic that if ''neither'' is happy with the arrangement, they can agree to klammer change it. They may change their minds. If they agree to do something different, that is that. If they “agree otherwise”, then otherwise it must be. ''One need not say this''.
  
 
If it is meaningless to say “[[Unless otherwise agreed|unless agreed otherwise]]”, then how fantastical must it be to say, “absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction”?
 
If it is meaningless to say “[[Unless otherwise agreed|unless agreed otherwise]]”, then how fantastical must it be to say, “absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction”?

Latest revision as of 04:22, 12 August 2019

Towards more picturesque speechTM

George Orwell on plain English | SEC guidance on plain English Plain English Anatomy Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings

This lumpen phrase has found its way into the derivatives canon. Google “absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction”, in quotes [1], if you don't believe me. There are 2000 hits for this exact phrase.

By contrast, "Last night, I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got in my pyjamas, I'll never know"[2] garners only 4,000 hits.

HOW CAN THIS PHRASE BE HALF AS POPULAR AS ONE OF GROUCHO MARX'S GREATEST LINES?

A moment’s reflection can break down this turgid twaddle:

“Absent” => “unless
“a written agreement between the parties” => “we agree
“that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary” => “otherwise
“for that transaction” => “ ”

This is, in other words, a long-winded way of saying “unless agreed otherwise”.

Now, a contract is simply a legally binding agreement. Nothing but a legally binding agreement. As long as one party is happy with the arrangement, the other is stuck with it.

But it is axiomatic that if neither is happy with the arrangement, they can agree to klammer change it. They may change their minds. If they agree to do something different, that is that. If they “agree otherwise”, then otherwise it must be. One need not say this.

If it is meaningless to say “unless agreed otherwise”, then how fantastical must it be to say, “absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly imposes affirmative obligations to the contrary for that transaction”?

References

  1. Let me Google that for you: you’ll need to supply your own quotation marks.
  2. Let me Google that for you: you’ll need to supply your own quotation marks.