82,891
edits
Liability: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|contract|}}{{dpn|/ˌlaɪəˈbɪlɪti/|n|}} | ||
The ''[[value]]'' of one’s legal [[obligation]]. In [[financial services]], generally | The ''[[value]]'' of one’s legal [[obligation]]. In [[financial services]] — indeed, generally in the arithmetic reckoning of the [[common law]], which reduces the world to a kind of eternal ledger of debits and credits, that duty ''is articulated as a sum of [[money]] payable''. Now, I am making this up as I go along, readers — no change there — but financial services practitioners have a notoriously loose grip of the English language, so hang it, call it a ''financial poet’s licence'' to be exact, even if that might be exactly ''wrong''. We monetary bards<ref>I say this in the plural, but I am yet to meet another one; it is a rather singular occupation.</ref> like to wield vocabulary with the deftness of a sturgeon. So let’s. | ||
In the narrowest sense, a “liability” is a term of accounting art: everything that an “[[asset]]” is not, only rendered in those monochromatic, monetary terms — accountants are colour-blind: they ''only'' understand the world in dollars and cents; they perceive only the decimal code underlying the multi-hued panorama that confronts the rest of us — but this is, in its way, a useful concept to hold onto when drafting a legal contract. It distinguishes a ''liability'' from an ''[[obligation]]'': your ''obligation'' is to provide a carbolic smoke-ball of merchantable quality; your ''liability'' is to pay £100 to a purchaser should it not work.<ref>Huh. I wonder if they would work for [[Covid]].</ref> | In the narrowest sense, a “liability” is a term of accounting art: everything that an “[[asset]]” is not, only rendered in those monochromatic, monetary terms — accountants are colour-blind: they ''only'' understand the world in dollars and cents; they perceive only the decimal code underlying the multi-hued panorama that confronts the rest of us — but this is, in its way, a useful concept to hold onto when drafting a legal contract. It distinguishes a ''liability'' from an ''[[obligation]]'': your ''obligation'' is to provide a [[carbolic smoke-ball]] of merchantable quality; your ''liability'' is to pay £100 to a purchaser should it not work.<ref>Huh. I wonder if they would work for [[Covid]].</ref> | ||
We are close to the netherworld of jurisprudence by which we ask what ''is'' [[money]]. But let’s save that for another day. | We are close to the netherworld of jurisprudence by which we ask what ''is'' [[money]]. But let’s save that for another day. | ||
A company’s [[shares]], by way of illustration, are ''not'' [[liabilities]], but rather represent an ''ownership'' interest in the issuing company. | A company’s [[shares]], by way of illustration, are ''not'' [[liabilities]], but rather represent an ''ownership'' interest in the issuing company. | ||
===Payment of liabilities out of own funds=== | |||
You may occasionally see a covenant from an [[repackaging]] [[espievie]] to its [[security trustee]] as follows: | |||
{{quote|'''[[Payment of liabilities]]''': The issuer must, [[at all times]], pay its liabilities out of its own funds or [[Procure|procure]] payment of such liabilities by other persons out of moneys owing to it.}} | |||
This seems to be as close to canonical as anything on Planet Repack, but it hardly stands up to close scrutiny. What does it even mean? Is it a simply covenant to its trustee perform its contractual obligations to others? {{security trustees as vogons}} | |||
On what planet would one be animated enough to take upon itself the job of enforcing some one else’s entitlement, if the someone else in question was not inclined to do so herself? And for what? Or is it meant to ''constrain'' how the issuer discharges its liabilities to others; to proscribe the manner in which it discharges its debts? In which case, how else could it meet its liabilities other than from funds it holds or which are owed to it, without committing aggravated robbery? | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Degrees of liability]] | |||
*[[Obligation]] | *[[Obligation]] | ||
*[[Indebtedness]] | *[[Indebtedness]] | ||
| Line 15: | Line 20: | ||
*[[Borrowed money]] | *[[Borrowed money]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{c|Repackaging}} | |||