82,896
edits
Conclusive evidence clause: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support [[indemnities]]. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in [[indemnities]] [[Indemnity|in the usual place]]<ref>Go on — honestly — you’ll love it: {{t|Indemnity}}</ref> but the key point to remember is that, a ''well-crafted'' {{tag|indemnity}}<ref>Much talked about, seldom seen.</ref> is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ''ascertainable sum'' of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what is required to be paid out. | [[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support [[indemnities]]. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in [[indemnities]] [[Indemnity|in the usual place]]<ref>Go on — honestly — you’ll love it: {{t|Indemnity}}</ref> but the key point to remember is that, a ''well-crafted'' {{tag|indemnity}}<ref>Much talked about, seldom seen.</ref> is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ''ascertainable sum'' of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what is required to be paid out. | ||
Thus you will see that tell-tale caveat: “in the absence of [[manifest error]]”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they put in the wrong number. | Thus you will see that tell-tale [[caveat]]: “in the absence of [[manifest error]]”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they put in the wrong number. | ||
In the traditional banking world, where lenders are prudent community pillars, obtain only the indemnities they need and that can be justified before a jury of their peers, and borrowers understand their place in the world, this is all straightforward: A banker ''ought'' to know how much {{sex|she}} is owed, and how much interest, and how it compounds, and ought not to be subjected to a tedious back-and-forth with a mendacious borrower trying prolong process of paying. That sort of carry-on only benefits one person, as we all know, O dear [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. | In the traditional banking world, where lenders are prudent community pillars, obtain only the indemnities they need and that can be justified before a jury of their peers, and borrowers understand their place in the world, this is all straightforward: A banker ''ought'' to know how much {{sex|she}} is owed, and how much interest, and how it compounds, and ought not to be subjected to a tedious back-and-forth with a mendacious borrower trying prolong process of paying. That sort of carry-on only benefits one person, as we all know, O dear [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. | ||