Legal: Difference between revisions

Legal (view source)

Revision as of 09:04, 22 December 2016

113 bytes removed , 22 December 2016

→‎Help me, Legal

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ====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 ''[[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 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 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.
+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.
-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]] 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.
-“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.
+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 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}}
 {{c|egg}}