82,891
edits
Severability: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Say I have agreed, for a monthly fee of ten pounds, to provide you with five services, one of which later transpires to be illegal. The other four services remain valid, as does your obligation to pay me the agreed monthly retainer. So is the contract simply severed to cut out the illegal service? Must you now pay me ten pounds for ''four'' services? | Say I have agreed, for a monthly fee of ten pounds, to provide you with five services, one of which later transpires to be illegal. The other four services remain valid, as does your obligation to pay me the agreed monthly retainer. So is the contract simply severed to cut out the illegal service? Must you now pay me ten pounds for ''four'' services? | ||
Equity says there should be some adjustment of the commercials; as we didn’t have a crystal ball, resolving this at the outset of a contract, with a [[severability]] clause seems cavalier. Yet this is what this boilerplate seems to do | Equity says there should be some adjustment of the commercials; as we didn’t have a crystal ball, resolving this at the outset of a contract, with a [[severability]] clause seems cavalier. Yet this is what this boilerplate seems to do. | ||
I know I keep banging on about complexity, but if there were ever a better example of forlornly trying to cater for a complex world with simple rules, this is it. Face facts: you are going to have to figure it out at the time. That such a prospect might give the heebie-jeebies to [[internal audit]], and the poor sap in [[compliance]] whose job it is to police the organisation’s [[risk taxonomy]], is an added frisson that some of you might find strangely ''satisfying''. I know I do. | |||
===Lady Macbeth=== | ===Lady Macbeth=== | ||