83,492
edits
Doubt: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Worse yet, it encourages those in the relationship not to talk to each other, for fear of prejudicing their pre-constructed legal protections. They may even feel, without Legal’s sanction, they cannot. This is exactly opposite to the optimal outcome. If there is a problem, ''get on the phone''. ''Talk''. Flex that relationship. ''Reinforce'' the trust and credit you have accumulated. In a positive-sum relationship, each party’s ultimate outcome is the other’s wellbeing. The longer they live the longer the relationship can last. The value of the relationship to each side is a function of ''time''.<ref>This is ''logically true'': if a relationship has a positive value — any value greater than nil — then prolonging it is the best outcome. If the relationship has a ''negative'' value for either side, that side should end it now, regardless of its prognosis. Why wait?</ref> | Worse yet, it encourages those in the relationship not to talk to each other, for fear of prejudicing their pre-constructed legal protections. They may even feel, without Legal’s sanction, they cannot. This is exactly opposite to the optimal outcome. If there is a problem, ''get on the phone''. ''Talk''. Flex that relationship. ''Reinforce'' the trust and credit you have accumulated. In a positive-sum relationship, each party’s ultimate outcome is the other’s wellbeing. The longer they live the longer the relationship can last. The value of the relationship to each side is a function of ''time''.<ref>This is ''logically true'': if a relationship has a positive value — any value greater than nil — then prolonging it is the best outcome. If the relationship has a ''negative'' value for either side, that side should end it now, regardless of its prognosis. Why wait?</ref> | ||
Here doubt is the best motivating factor. “Hey, legal, what does this clause in our legal agreement, that we signed 19 years ago, mean? Can we do this?” | Here doubt is the best motivating factor. “Hey, legal, what does this clause in our legal agreement, that we signed 19 years ago, mean? Can we do this?” | ||
The correct answer, which will rarely issue from the lips of a [[legal eagle] | The correct answer, which will rarely issue from the lips of a [[legal eagle]], is, “well, why in God’s name are you asking ''me''? Shouldn’t you ask your ''client''?” | ||
For, really, what possible use can a clause hammered out | For, really, what possible use can a clause your legal teams hammered out 10 years ago be in getting to the heart of the matter? If, now, your client would not like you to behave in this way, what difference does it make, to your ongoing relationship, that a 10-year-old document says that you ''can''? Or, for that matter,''vice versa''?<ref>Much more likely will be that it ''won’t'' say that you ''can’t'', which doesn’t really help anyone.</ref> In any case, isn’t that kind of doubt creative; on opportunity for a client conversation and who knows where it will lead? In any case, surfeit of certainly in your contract a decade ago leads to two bad outcomes: either a legally correct but commercially damaging decision to disregard your client’s expectations, or an expensive, slow and clumsy way of getting permission (via the [[legal eagle]]s) where a quick phone call might have done the job and, who knows, led to other opportunities.<ref>Note here, recent efforts by the English courts to entrench the lawyer’s role in commercial negotiations through [[no oral modification]] clauses.</ref> | ||
==={{t|Epistemology}} of [[certainty]]=== | ==={{t|Epistemology}} of [[certainty]]=== | ||