Counterparts: Difference between revisions

{{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.

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.  

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''.

''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''.  

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''.

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.

''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.

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.