82,891
edits
Counterparts: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
{{ | |||
}} | |||
===It’s for leases, peeps.=== | ===It’s for leases, peeps.=== | ||
{{counterparts capsule}} | {{counterparts capsule}} | ||
===Are you, like, ''sure''?=== | ===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. But it ''isn''’t best practice. It is ''stupid'' practice. It is feeble, lawyering by rote. It is not-quite-[[premium mediocre]]. | 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. | ||
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''. | ''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''. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 16: | ||
===Why do you care so much, [[JC]]?=== | ===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, | 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=== | ===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. | ''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. | ||