Legal: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
====Help me, Legal ==== | ====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 | 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 colleagues who can’t be bothered — or are too ''scared'' — to make a simple decision by themselves. No-one ''likes'' making decisions in modern multinationals: no individual good comes of it, however much collective good may follow. Individual good comes from taking ''[[taking credit|credit]]'', not taking a [[taking a view|view]]''. | ||
But not all legal questions are beyond | But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: the law [[supposes|deemed]] you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is 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]] or weighing in on 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>. 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 — either there ''is'' a contract, or there ''isn’t'', 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. | |||
It is binary, however, for — and this is a matter of logic, not law — there | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{c|egg}} | {{c|egg}} | ||
Revision as of 09:04, 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 colleagues who can’t be bothered — or are too scared — to make a simple decision by themselves. No-one likes making decisions in modern multinationals: no individual good comes of it, however much collective good may follow. Individual good comes from taking credit, not taking a view.
But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, none of them are: the law deemed you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is 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 or weighing in on whether the intention to create legal relations is an independent ingredient of the consensus ad idem[2]. 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 — either there is a contract, or there isn’t, 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
- ↑ There is something worse: faux joviality, which conveys as finely honed sarcasm, in the phrase “Hi, Legal Eagles!!!”
- ↑ 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.