82,890
edits
Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions
Good luck in court with that one (view source)
Revision as of 09:45, 7 October 2021
, 7 October 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
When presented with such pettifoggery, resist it thus: “are you saying that if you presented your interpretation to a court it would, seriously, entertain it?” | When presented with such pettifoggery, resist it thus: “are you saying that if you presented your interpretation to a court it would, seriously, entertain it?” | ||
The idea is to move from | The idea is to move the debate from tedious hypotheticals about conceptual risks and linguistic imperfections, to assessing the practical risk of significant confusion that results in loss. A lawyer’s mandate is made of wood, metal, leather and earth. It is not of the [[Platonic ideal|spheres]]. We are not theorists of perfect exactitude, but ''enablers of commercse''. [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough]]. | ||
[[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds ''toward'' the paranoid, ''away from'' practical common sense at every opportunity. | But yonder looms the long shadow of the [[agency problem]]: [[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds ''toward'' the paranoid, ''away from'' practical common sense at every opportunity. ''[[I mark up, therefore I am]]''. | ||
Every legal [[negotiator]] will, regularly, find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe ''which'' might arise ''if'' a counterpart should wilfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. The difficulty of resisting this sort of passive-aggressive logic is articulated in the [[anal paradox]], which the [[JC]] has since fully validated as the [[ninth law of worker entropy]]. | Every legal [[negotiator]] will, regularly, find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe ''which'' might arise ''if'' a counterpart should wilfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. The difficulty of resisting this sort of passive-aggressive logic is articulated in the [[anal paradox]], which the [[JC]] has since fully validated as the [[ninth law of worker entropy]]. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Anal paradox]] | *[[Anal paradox]] | ||
*[[Agency problem]] | |||