Counterparts: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Counterparts (view source)

Revision as of 14:50, 4 April 2024

661 bytes added , 4 April

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{boileranat|Counterparts|
+{{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.
-===Do I need a counterparts clause?===
+===It’s for leases, peeps.===
-Is the {{t|contract}} before me a [[deed]] of lease?
+{{counterparts capsule}}
-:''Yes'': No, and it won’t work if you’ve got one: You all have to sign the same document.
+===Are you, like, ''sure''?===
-:''No'': No, and can safely sign in as many counterparts as you like.
+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.
-YOU DON’T NEED A COUNTERPARTS CLAUSE.
-[[File:Twins shining.jpg|450px|thumb|center|You sign first. No, you.]]
-}}
-The 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 the there ''will'' be a [[counterparts]] clause<ref>And a [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] clause too,</ref> and it ''will'' be bullet-proof.
-{{counterparts capsule}}
+But it ''isn''’t best practice. It is ''stupid'' practice. It is feeble, lawyering by rote. It is not-quite-[[premium mediocre]].
+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''.
-Unless you are executing a [[deed]] ''of lease'', you can sign in counterparts without a clause allowing you dto do so. ''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 require 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''.
+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.
-Note, also, that where formal execution requirements ''do'' require every hand to besmirch the same physical parchment, a [[counterparts]] clause won’t save you. This is [[Magic incantation|deep magic]], and no beginner’s spell will shoo it away.
+===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}}
+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}}