Doubt: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
73 bytes removed ,  8 December 2020
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 37: Line 37:
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>  
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''; an opportunity for business folk to have a constructive conversation which might lead who knows where? Here a ''surfeit'' of [[certainty]] leads to two bad outcomes: either a (legally correct but nevertheless) commercially damaging decision to disregard your client’s expectations, or an expensive, slow and clumsy way of seeking it's permission (via the [[legal eagle]]s papering and amendment: expect your client’s risk team to be suspicious of ''any'' amendment, however benign to your minds it may be, especially if, as inevitably they will, your legal team concoct five pages of boilerplate to articulate it) 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>
In any case, isn’t that kind of doubt ''creative''; an opportunity to have a constructive conversation, which might lead who knows where? Here a ''surfeit'' of [[certainty]] leads to two bad outcomes: either a commercially damaging decision to disregard your client’s expectations, or an expensive, slow and clumsy way of seeking its permission, where a quick phone call might have done the job and led to other opportunities. Wheeling out your [[legal eagle]]s to “paper” an [[amendment]], however benign you might believe it to be, will arouse your client’s suspicions:  especially if, as inevitably they will, your legal team concoct five pages of boilerplate to articulate it.<ref>Note here, recent efforts by the English courts to entrench the lawyer’s role in commercial negotiations through [[no oral modification]] clauses.</ref>


Ultimately where there is ''trust'' between the counterparties, and their relationship stays healthy, all you should need is a [[cocktail napkin]]. Really robust legal advice should be designed to keep things, to the greatest extent, so that neither party feels the need for anything more.
Ultimately, where there is ''trust'' between the counterparties, and their relationship stays healthy, all you should need is a [[cocktail napkin]]. Really robust legal advice should be designed to keep things, to the greatest extent, so that neither party feels the need for anything more.


===The [[complexity]]-appropriateness of doubt===
===The [[complexity]]-appropriateness of doubt===

Navigation menu