Counterparts: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(Created page with "So sayeth Black’s Law dictionary: {{box|“In conveyancing. The corresponding part of an instrument; a duplicate or copy. Where an instrument of conveyance, as a lease, is e...")
 
No edit summary
 
(55 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
So sayeth Black’s Law dictionary:
{{boileranat|Counterparts|{{financecontractenvy}}{{image|Twins shining|jpg|}}}}{{drop|T|he remainder of the [[contract]]}} might be an absolute shower of confusions, contradictions, misconceptions, failures of [[consideration]], unenforceable half-promises, paralytic [[indemnities]], absurd [[disclaimer]]s of [[liability]] and outrageous derogations from the perfectly sensible allocations of risk vouchsafed by the [[common law]] of [[contract]], but be assured: there ''will'' be a [[counterparts]] clause and it ''will'' be bullet-proof.
{{box|“In conveyancing. The corresponding part of an instrument; a duplicate or copy. 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.”}}
===It’s for leases, peeps.===
{{counterparts capsule}}
===Are you, like, ''sure''?===
It is fun<ref>Not for long, but for about five minutes. </ref> counting the client bulletins that say “while a counterparts clause may not be strictly necessary, it ''is'' [[best practice]].” Then you realise they ''all'' say this.  


There are some situations where it is important that more than one copy of a document is recognized as an “original” - for tax purposes, for example, or the agreement needs to be formally registered. but these cases are few and far between, and the rest of the time a counterparts clause - like the one in the {{isdama}} is pure flannel, and flannel which may lead cautious counsel to insist on one wherever she can’t see one, on pain of demanding every person gets around the same table and indelibly marks the same parchment with a feather quill.
But it ''isn''’t best practice. It is ''stupid'' practice. It is feeble, lawyering by rote. It is not-quite-[[premium mediocre]].


THIS IS NONSENSE.
If you work inhouse and if any of your contract forms have counterparts clauses in them — and let’s face it, they all do, don’t they? — then ''you are not thinking hard enough about your job''.


Outside the formal requirements of execution deeds of lease, contracts for the conveyance of land, that kind of thing — for an agreement to be enforceable you need to fall back on your first contract law lecture. You need:
''Normal'' contracts even 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 need a counterparts clause''.
*[[offer]]
*[[acceptance]]
*[[consideration]]


Here we are talking about [[acceptance]]. Acceptance does not require the [[aforementioned]] quill, and indeed does not require signature (digital [[or otherwise]]) at all. Acceptance may be evidenced orally, by gesture, or even just by behaving in a way that is only explicable by reference the terms of the putative contract being argued about.
How so? Well, think back to your first {{tag|contract}} law lecture: for a contract to be effective you need an [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]].<ref>No, you do '''''not''''' need the [[intention to create legal relations]].</ref> “Execution”, however you manifest it, is simply ''a way of indicating [[acceptance]]''. [[Acceptance]] does not require a quill. ''It does not require a signature at all''. One may accept [[orally]], by a gesture, or even just by behaving in a way that can only really be explained by imputing your acquiescence to the terms of the {{t|contract}} being argued about. All one needs to do is satisfy oneself — and the court from whom you are praying aid — that your counterparty communicated [[acceptance]] ''somehow''.


Signature is about evidence of that acceptance, and the fact that parties have signed and exchanged different copies of the same document is just as compelling evidence of their agreement to it than that they signed the same one.
A ''signature'' is simply ''[[evidence]]'' of that [[acceptance]]. Parties signing different copies of the same contract is no less compelling evidence than both signing the same one.
 
===Why do you care so much, [[JC]]?===
This is a fair question. Does a counterparts clause ''hurt'' anybody? Other than the incremental trees sacrificed to print out that extra four lines of text — and our children’s children, who will expire on a desiccated savannah we once knew as Tottenham Hale as a result — no-one. But it is the ''mediocrity''; the ''lack of gumption'', the unquestioning, ''following-everyone-else-by-rote'' that gets me.
 
Have some professional pride, fellow [[Legal eagles|eagles]]! Dare to know your stuff! Have no truck with this timid nonsense.
 
===Odd spot===
''The'' Counterparts is a Canadian hardcore punk band from Hamilton, Ontario. True. We think they had trouble getting the guys together in the same room in the early days for rehearsals.
===Second odd spot===
It is well-settled that a single individual cannot grant a lease to himself: {{cite|Rye|Rye|1962|AC|496}}. This is from the “thanks for phoning it in, judges” department. You have to wonder what kind of a confused client brought that kind of case to the judiciary, let alone ''appealed'' the goddamn thing.
 
{{sa}}
*[[In your face]]
*[[Counterparts and Confirmations - ISDA Provision]]
*{{gmslaprov|Counterparts}} in the {{gmsla}}
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterparts_(band) Those Great Lakes hell-raisers ''The Counterparts'']
{{ref}}