83,580
edits
Template:Rep obligations binding: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A representation that transgresses the very first rule of representations and warranties, which is that they are meant to be about matters of private, present ''fact''...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
But there are no such matters of private fact involved when one represents one’s obligations under a [[contract]] are binding: a [[contract]] is either valid and binding on a party or it isn’t; this isn’t the sort of thing that one party can conceal from the other. Indeed; whether a contract is valid and binding is ''not'' a question of fact ''at all'': it’s a question of ''law''. | But there are no such matters of private fact involved when one represents one’s obligations under a [[contract]] are binding: a [[contract]] is either valid and binding on a party or it isn’t; this isn’t the sort of thing that one party can conceal from the other. Indeed; whether a contract is valid and binding is ''not'' a question of fact ''at all'': it’s a question of ''law''. | ||
It, therefore, requires an ''[[opinion]]'', from one qualified to give such an opinion. The person who can attest to these is a special fellow. A boy wizard. A [[legal eagle]]. If you want to know whether your agreement is binding, don’t ask the counterparty; ask [[legal]]. | It, therefore, requires an ''[[legal opinion|opinion]]'', from one qualified to give such an opinion. The person who can attest to these is a special fellow. A boy wizard. A [[legal eagle]]. If you want to know whether your agreement is binding, don’t ask the counterparty; ask [[legal]]. | ||
The [[Obligations binding - Representation|obligations binding]] representation offends another principle of contractual representation, too: it is a ''pre-contractual'' statement as to a ''legal'' state of affairs which, by definition, ''has not yet come about''. The “bindingness” of the contract is not a ''present'' fact at the time this representation is made. Representations as to the expected state of the world in the future are not generally called “representations”. They are called “''[[promise|promises]]''”. | The [[Obligations binding - Representation|obligations binding]] representation offends another principle of contractual representation, too: it is a ''pre-contractual'' statement as to a ''legal'' state of affairs which, by definition, ''has not yet come about''. The “bindingness” of the contract is not a ''present'' fact at the time this representation is made. Representations as to the expected state of the world in the future are not generally called “representations”. They are called “''[[promise|promises]]''”. | ||
And yet there is more: if it is, somehow, a ''post''-contractual [[representation]]<ref> these things are normally called “[[warranties]]”.</ref> about current state of affairs, it presents some kind of existential {{t|paradox}}. For this [[warranty]] to be wrong, the contract must, QED, be invalid or unenforceable, including this warranty. So precisely when you needf to rely on it, you find it has vanished like some kind of that Schrödinger’s cat. | And yet there is more: if it is, somehow, a ''post''-contractual [[representation]]<ref> these things are normally called “[[warranties]]”.</ref> about current state of affairs, it presents some kind of existential {{t|paradox}}. For this [[warranty]] to be wrong, the contract must, QED, be invalid or unenforceable, including this warranty. So precisely when you needf to rely on it, you find it has vanished like some kind of that Schrödinger’s cat. | ||