Counterparts: Difference between revisions

Counterparts (view source)

Revision as of 10:18, 1 May 2020

1,289 bytes removed , 1 May 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{boileranat|Counterparts}}Outside the arcane and stupefying word of conveyancing, a “[[counterparts]]” clause is a waste of trees. Indeed: even ''there'', it is a waste of trees, because it won’t work. Let that not stop your [[legal eagle]]s insisting on one, on pain of cratering the trade altogether, of course: a fellow has to put food on the table for his younglings.
+{{boileranat|Counterparts}}{{counterparts capsule}}
-Black’s Law dictionary has the following to say on [[counterparts]]:
+[[Legal eagle|Cautious counsel]] (equally useful, of course) may nonetheless insist on one, against the threat of having everyone get around the same table to mark the same parchment with a feather quill.
-:''“Where an instrument of conveyance, as a lease, is executed in parts, that is, by having several copies or duplicates made and interchangeably executed, that which is executed by the grantor is usually called the “original,” and the rest are “counterparts;” although, where all the parties execute every part, this renders them all originals.”
-Sometimes it is important that more than one copy of a document is recognised as an “original” — for [[tax]] purposes, for example, or where “the agreement” must be formally lodged with a land registry. But these cases, involving the conveyance of real estate, are rare  — non-existent, indeed, when the field you are ploughing overflows with flowering {{isdama}}s, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and so on. Away from the gripping world of land law, a [[counterparts]] clause is as useful as a chocolate tea-pot.
-[[Mediocre lawyer|Cautious counsel]] (equally useful, of course) may nonetheless insist on one, against the threat of having everyone get around the same table to mark the same parchment with a feather quill.
 Unless you are executing a [[deed]] ''of lease'', THIS IS NONSENSE. ''Normal'' contracts — even vaguely spicy ones, like [[deed]]s<ref>See [http://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/signed-sealed-delivered-execution-of-deeds-and-documents-and-how-it-might-go-wrong/ Osborne Clarke] as authority for this.</ref> — ''do not require a counterparts clause''. How so? Well, think back to your first {{tag|contract}} law lecture: