83,240
edits
Entire agreement clause: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Are you feeling lucky?=== | ===Are you feeling lucky?=== | ||
But an [[entire agreement]] | But an [[entire agreement]] clause suggests the [[learned counsel]] have understood every commercial nuance and forensic contingency, even if their clients have not. If also presumes that, having done so, between them they will have successfully memorialised those terms in a prose that speaks with utmost clarity to the commercial bargain. The [[JC]] knows a lot of lawyers and would urge caution against this assumption. | ||
If they have done so — fat chance, but let’s just say — then there is surely nothing left to doubt, the parties will be happy, there will be no dispute, and all will be well in the world. But should the parties later find themselves at gunpoint, the legal agreement has ''already failed'' at this avowed intent. To now cast your lot with the [[legal eagles]] and whatever they did manage to confabulate is, it seems to this old codger, to double down on an enterprise you already know to have been regrettable. If the merchants’ own discussions, captured in contemporaneous correspondence, casts a different light upon the bargain, then wouldn’t that, rather than their advisers’ ''post facto'' magniloquence, be a better clue to a good resolution? | If they have done so — fat chance, but let’s just say — then there is surely nothing left to doubt, the parties will be happy, there will be no dispute, and all will be well in the world. But should the parties later find themselves at gunpoint, the legal agreement has ''already failed'' at this avowed intent. To now cast your lot with the [[legal eagles]] and whatever they did manage to confabulate is, it seems to this old codger, to double down on an enterprise you already know to have been regrettable. If the merchants’ own discussions, captured in contemporaneous correspondence, casts a different light upon the bargain, then wouldn’t that, rather than their advisers’ ''post facto'' magniloquence, be a better clue to a good resolution? | ||