Legal: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, [[Legal]]”<ref>There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as finely honed sarcasm, in the phrase “Hi, [[Legal Eagles]]!!!”</ref>.
The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, [[Legal]]”<ref>There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as finely honed sarcasm, in the phrase “Hi, [[Legal Eagles]]!!!”</ref>.


====Help, help, help, help, help me Legal ====
====Help me, Legal ====
The frequently heard, and usually false, refrain “I cannot opine on that, because it’s a question of law” drops like a scented jewel fro the lips of that kind dreary colleague who can’t be bothered to — or is too ''scared'' to — make a judgement of {{sex|her}} own because, well, ''no-one likes making decisions in a modern multinational''. No individual good comes from taking a view, however much collective good may follow. [[As any fule kno]], Individual good comes by taking ''[[taking credit|credit]]'', not taking a [[taking a view|view]]''.
The frequently heard, usually false, refrain, “I cannot opine on that, because it’s a question of law” drops like a scented jewel from the lips of that kind colleague who can’t be bothered — or is too ''scared'' — to make a simply decision because, well, ''no-one likes making decisions in modern multinationals''. No individual good comes from it, however much collective good may follow. [[As any fule kno]], individual good comes from taking ''[[taking credit|credit]]'', not taking a [[taking a view|view]]''.


But, dear colleague, however inconvenient it may be to the outlook for your posterior, not all legal questions are beyond your grasp. Indeed, by presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: you know their answers comprehensively, however paltry your legal education. Ignorance is no defence.
But not all legal questions are beyond your grasp. By presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: the law [[supposes|deemed]] you know their answers comprehensively, however paltry your legal education. Ignorance is no defence.


Yet it seems to be not so much a defence as an aspirational state of virtue within the confines of the modern corporation.
Yet, within a modern corporation, ignorance is not only a defence but a virtue.


“Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “[[Legal]]” can opine, of course — nothing gives [[Legal]] greater pleasure than the opportunity to sound off on the difference between an [[offer]] and an [[invitation to treat]], or to weigh in on the question of whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is indeed an independent ingredient of the ''[[consensus ad idem]]''<ref>Whatever the learned academics and the courts may say it is not. Intention to create legal relations is exactly the inference one draws from there being offer, acceptance and consideration.</ref>. But of course any fool should know if he has concluded a contract. Does he have such a crisis of confidence at the till in the supermarket, or as he presses his coppers into the newsagent’s mittened hand? Why should the fact that it is a security one is buying make the concept any harder? At any rate, take a view, if you want to clarify it, appeal for help: but it must be one thing or the other.
“Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “[[Legal]]” can opine, of course — nothing gives “[[Legal]]” greater pleasure than sounding off on [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[invitation to treat]]; weighing in on the question of whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is an independent ingredient of the ''[[consensus ad idem]]''<ref>Whatever the learned academics and the courts may say it is not. [[Intention to create legal relations]] is ''the inference you draw'' from an [[accept]]ed [[offer]] supported by [[consideration]].</ref>. But contract formation is not alchemy: you do it without pause at the supermarket checkout and when you press a copper into your newsagent’s mitten.


Refusing to answer any legal question however basic doesn’t save you from a forensic trap so much as it shrouds you in a self-inflicted no-man’s land of purblind ambiguity. For — and this is a matter of logic, not law — you either have a contract or you don’t: each status implies its own set of risks and rewards, but there is no purgatorial state between them. It’s like being pregnant. There is no third way. You have to hitch your wagon to one train or the other.
It is binary, however, for — and this is a matter of logic, not law — there either ''is'' a contract or there ''isn’t''; each state of affairs carries its own  
risks and rewards, but there is no purgatorial state between them. It’s like being pregnant: there is no third way. You must hitch your wagon to one train or the other.


{{ref}}
{{ref}}


{{c|egg}}
{{c|egg}}

Revision as of 08:59, 22 December 2016

I am a human being

The department whose individuals you can’t be bothered naming to which you forward awkward queries you can't be bothered reading for yourself, let along taking the time to understand. You may never how much a lawyer resents that to-all email addressed: “Hi, Legal”[1].

Help me, Legal

The frequently heard, usually false, refrain, “I cannot opine on that, because it’s a question of law” drops like a scented jewel from the lips of that kind colleague who can’t be bothered — or is too scared — to make a simply decision because, well, no-one likes making decisions in modern multinationals. No individual good comes from it, however much collective good may follow. As any fule kno, individual good comes from taking credit, not taking a view.

But not all legal questions are beyond your grasp. By presumption of law, none of them are: the law deemed you know their answers comprehensively, however paltry your legal education. Ignorance is no defence.

Yet, within a modern corporation, ignorance is not only a defence but a virtue.

“Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “Legal” can opine, of course — nothing gives “Legal” greater pleasure than sounding off on offer, acceptance and invitation to treat; weighing in on the question of whether the intention to create legal relations is an independent ingredient of the consensus ad idem[2]. But contract formation is not alchemy: you do it without pause at the supermarket checkout and when you press a copper into your newsagent’s mitten.

It is binary, however, for — and this is a matter of logic, not law — there either is a contract or there isn’t; each state of affairs carries its own risks and rewards, but there is no purgatorial state between them. It’s like being pregnant: there is no third way. You must hitch your wagon to one train or the other.

References

  1. ↑ There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as finely honed sarcasm, in the phrase “Hi, Legal Eagles!!!”
  2. ↑ Whatever the learned academics and the courts may say it is not. Intention to create legal relations is the inference you draw from an accepted offer supported by consideration.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Legal&oldid=15131"