Dispute, controversy, difference or claim: Difference between revisions

Dispute, controversy, difference or claim (view source)

Revision as of 17:59, 30 March 2021

179 bytes added , 30 March 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,743

edits

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 As you can imagine it continues in this vein for a few hundred more words but the above is enough to pick out a couple of succulent legalistic delicacies.
+===Controversies===
+First, the timidity — ''absurdity'', really — with which topics being suitable for arbitration are framed. You would think “dispute” really ought to do it: any ''contretemps'' grave enough to justify arbitration ought to make it over the bar to count as one of those.
-First, the timidity — ''absurdity'', really — with which topics being suitable for arbitration are framed. You would think “dispute” really ought to do it: any ''contretemps'' grave enough to justify arbitration ought to make it over the bar to count as one of those.
+But a mere ''controversy''? I write out of concern for the personal well-being of those given to provoking people. Like the [[Jolly Contrarian|JC]], who is not above airing his controversial views about legal contracts and those who negotiate them, especially once the bell rings and the children swarm out of school and pile into the local.
-But a mere ''''controversy''''? I write out of concern for the personal well-being of those given to provoking people. Like the [[Jolly Contrarian|JC]], who is not above airing his controversial views about legal contracts and those who negotiate them, especially once the bell rings and the children swarm out of school and pile into the local.
+Now having aired a “controversial” view about, say, the utter wretchedness of the phrase, “any dispute, controversy, difference or claim arising out of, relating to or having any connection with this contract,” should we now expect to be hauled before an arbitral committee just to be put straight on the matter? It seems a bit of an over-reaction.
+===The existence thereof===
+Especially if, secondly, the contract didn’t exist in the first place. There is something of a [[paradox]] here.
-Having aired a “controversial” view about, say, the utter wretchedness of the phrase, “any dispute, controversy, difference or claim arising out of, relating to or having any connection with this contract,” we would not expect to be hauled before an arbitral committee just to be put straight on the matter.
+For, should you and I ''differ''  in our opinions about whether we even ''have'' a contract, let alone one on such preposterous terms — if our failure to “[[Consensus ad idem|meet minds]]” about whether we ever ''met'' minds over this ridiculous, alleged contract, is sufficiently animated to count as a “dispute” — you know, a proper full-blooded, wholehearted, litigatey one — then does it not rather put the cart before the horse for you to claim — “haha! it says here we must present our debate for adjudication to this forum!” — when the “here” to which you refer is the very contract that, if I have my “controversial” way, I will establish ''does not exist''?
-Especially if, secondly, the contract didn’t exist in the first place, or if the JC wasn’t party to it. There is something of a [[paradox]] here. For should you and I ''differ''  in our opinions about whether we have a contract at all, let alone one on such preposterous terms — if our failure to [[Consensus ad idem|meet minds]] about whether we ever met minds over this ridiculous, alleged contract, even with sufficient a degree of agitation for it to count as a dispute — a proper full-blooded, wholehearted, litigatey one — then does it not rather put the cart before the horse to claim we must present our debate for adjudication to the forum set out in the very contract that, if I have by “controversial” way, ''does not exist''?
+{{Sa}}
+*[[Paradox]]
+{{c|Paradox}}