83,580
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Enthusiastic minds might have noticed that, unlike the {{gmra}} and the {{isdama}}, there are no “{{gmslaprov|Representations}}” as such in the {{gmsla}}. But there ''ar...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
But there ''are'' {{gmslaprov|Warranties}}, and these — except in one arcane and theoretically<ref>But not ''practically'', unless you are some kind of super spod.</ref>) important way — amount to the same thing. | But there ''are'' {{gmslaprov|Warranties}}, and these — except in one arcane and theoretically<ref>But not ''practically'', unless you are some kind of super spod.</ref>) important way — amount to the same thing. | ||
Precis: A [[representation]] is a pre-contractual statement which induces your entry into a contract but is not part of the contract. One’s remedy for [[misrepresentation]] is thus not damages, but the avoidance of the contract altogether. You are put in the place you would have been in had you never entered the contract at all. A [[warranty]] is a contractual term, the remedy for breach of which is [[damages]] under the {{t|contract}}. | |||
The potential value of these two remedies may be different, which is why one sees “[[representations and warranties]]”: this gives an innocent party maximum optionality to stick the naughty party with whatever is the worse measure of loss. | The potential value of these two remedies may be different, which is why one sees “[[representations and warranties]]”: this gives an innocent party maximum optionality to stick the naughty party with whatever is the worse measure of loss. | ||
As to why the {{gmsla}} did away with this option — who can say? | As to why the {{gmsla}} did away with this option — who can say? Perhaps the nature of stock lending contracts are such that there is no real difference in remedy. |