82,914
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Conclusive evidence to Conclusive evidence clause) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|boilerplate| | {{a|boilerplate| | ||
[[File:Dramatic Look Gopher.gif|450px|thumb|center|Did someone say ... ''[[indemnities]]''?]]}}Any finance lawyer will be familiar with the [[conclusive evidence clause]] | [[File:Dramatic Look Gopher.gif|450px|thumb|center|Did someone say ... ''[[indemnities]]''?]]}}Any finance lawyer will be familiar with the [[conclusive evidence clause]]. These beauties are meant to support — [[dramatic look gopher]] — ''[[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 indemnity|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 will have to be paid out. | ||
Of course, as we well know, most [[indemnities]] are ''not'' well-crafted, but will be hopelessly vague, woolly, all-you-can-possibly-think-of affairs — just the kind of thing that ''isn’t'' “readily ascertainable”, at least not without the need for the a full adversarial process, with a day’s cross examination from [[Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, Q.C.]], to thrash them out. | Of course, as we well know, most [[indemnities]] are ''not'' well-crafted, but will be hopelessly vague, woolly, all-you-can-possibly-think-of affairs — just the kind of thing that ''isn’t'' “readily ascertainable”, at least not without the need for the a full adversarial process, with a day’s cross examination from [[Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, Q.C.]], to thrash them out. |