83,057
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{gmslaanat|27.5}} | {{gmslaanat|27.5}} | ||
Classic over-communication from | Classic over-communication from {{islacds}. Nothing in the {{gmsla}} says you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor,</ref>In Mike’s immortal words from the [[I never said you couldn’t|Nasty]] episode, “Well it wouldn’t, would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”</ref> and there are no confidentiality provisions, so plainly, this clause is not needed. | ||
''“But [[it won’t hurt]] to include it”'', that drafting | ''“But [[it won’t hurt]] to include it”'', that drafting squadmust have thought. | ||
Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup. | Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup. | ||
but what it might to is cause confusion, angst, and alarm among the [[legal eagles]], which in itself might prolong your negotiation for months. I am not just saying that. We know of one negotiation where the last outstanding point was “can we add a requirement for the mutual consent of both parties before appointing a third party vendor?” | |||
{{islacds}} might think on this from a [[behavioural economics]] perspective: If this clause did not exist, no-one would imagine it needed limiting: it doesn’t say anywhere that you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor if that’s what you want to do, and, in the world of commerce, provided you don’t transgress your positive [[contractual obligation|contractual obligations]], you are free to do as you please. But, by saying it, you ask a silly question and invite a silly answer. Few assiduous attorneys will pass up the free opportunity to give one of those. | |||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
Line 10: | Line 14: | ||
*[[Video nasty]] | *[[Video nasty]] | ||
*[[If in doubt, stick it in]] | *[[If in doubt, stick it in]] | ||
{{ref}} |