82,247
edits
Non-contractual obligation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Non-contractual obligation (view source)
Revision as of 15:14, 20 September 2022
, 20 September 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation|{{image|Contractual Obligation|jpg|Not one of these.}}}}From the “shoot me now” file, the idea of a “[[non-contractual obligation]]” is relevant to: | |||
:(a) the [[terminally pedantic]] and | |||
:(b) those splendid, if [[terminally pedantic]], folk whose handmaiden is the [[Rome II]] convention on [[governing law]]. | |||
“[[Non-contractual obligations]]” includes claims based on [[tort]] (such as [[negligence]]), breach of [[competition law]] and breach of [[statutory duty]] which may nonetheless arise out of a [[contract]] without amounting to a breach of it. As you can imagine, this happens a lot in the context of financial markets transactions.<ref>It doesn’t.</ref> | |||
There is ''bound'' to be some [[Negotiator|well-meaning member of the bourgeoisie]] who will hold-up the conclusion of your deal because there is no mention of [[non-contractual obligation]]s in the [[governing law]] clause. You are best just to smile your kindest smile and, on the inside, wish a plague upon them and their houses, as you insert the language. Don’t even try adding in a sardonic “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, tempting though it may be — it may be justified, but they won’t like it and your best outcome is to be shot of this person and their ghastly document as quickly as you can. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Rome II]] | |||
*[[Governing law]] | |||
*[[Non-exclusive jurisdiction]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||