Contract: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
*The moment you say [[for the avoidance of doubt]], you  acknowledged you don’t trust someone or something. Best case, it’s only your own faculty with the English language.
*The moment you say [[for the avoidance of doubt]], you  acknowledged you don’t trust someone or something. Best case, it’s only your own faculty with the English language.
===The contract, the document, and the [[parol evidence]] rule===
===The contract, the document, and the [[parol evidence]] rule===
{{contract versus document}}
{{contract vs document}}
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Agency]]
*[[Agency]]

Revision as of 20:00, 23 March 2020

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™


Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.


“I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.
An Elephant’s faithful
One-hundred percent!”
-- Dr. Suess - Horton Hatches the Egg

Some principles which should help you make a good bargain.

  • Magic words are a really bad risk mitigant. Template:Truism.
  • The foundation of any contract is trust. If you don’t trust your counterparty, don’t make a contract with it.
  • The moment you say for the avoidance of doubt, you acknowledged you don’t trust someone or something. Best case, it’s only your own faculty with the English language.

The contract, the document, and the parol evidence rule

The contract versus the written agreement

The contract, consensus ad idem is an immaterial thing. It has no physical extension. It does not intrude on the mortal plane. Its best Earthly representative is the written agreement, a memorial on parchment wherein the parties do their best to set out the boundaries of their compact. The document is not the contract; the contract is not the document — they are spirit and flesh; a Platonic ideal and its flickering shadow on the grotto wall.

But if there should be some executed paper — for most contracts there need not, but let’s just say there is — a court will be disinclined to look beyond its “four corners” when divining the parties’ commercial intentions in signing it. This is in part convenience, in part laziness, but in part the fair assumption that, since the parties were bothered to write down the important parts of their agreement, anything they didn’t write down either didn’t exist or can’t have been important enough to justify memorialising. In this way the Platonic form of the contract and its bodily extension into our decadent organic realm become one. It’s rather biblical.

Since an issue that has attracted the attention of the Queen’s Bench Division must be important, the Court’s doubt will benefit not one party or the other, but the paperwork both of them signed. The Lord is not your witness, so the signed written record will have to do.

This rule against extraneous evidence — as with so many historic principles of the common law, these days a diminished thing — is known as the “parol evidence” rule.

The unilateral contract

Curiously, the foregoing is less obviously true in the case of a unilateral contract which is signed by neither parties: for example the famous carbolic smoke-ball. In that unique case, the immaterial consensus ad idem and the written form of the contract, albeit unsigned, are coextensive. There is no other articulation of the agreement.

See also

References