82,247
edits
Good egg: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
On why it behoves you to be a good egg. | On why it behoves you to be a good egg. | ||
Those who cherish the feel of {{tag|flannel}} close to the skin will take comfort in expressions like [[all or substantially all]]; [[in whole or in part]], [[one or more]]; [[unless otherwise agreed]] | Those who cherish the feel of {{tag|flannel}} close to the skin will take comfort in expressions like “[[all or substantially all]]”; “[[in whole or in part]]”, “[[one or more]]”; “[[unless otherwise agreed]]” . These expressions betray a fear that a judicial officer reading one’s prose will take a perversely literal view of it: that a court will construe your words deliberately to upset you; as the {{tag|Latin}}s say, “[[contra proferentem]]”. | ||
But the law of the land is not there to frustrate your honest commercial intentions. | |||
But a court will only do that if one’s intentions were otherwise (as, to be sure, many a merchant’s will be if the opportunity arises to tilt the tables in his favour - Adam Smith had some choice things to say about that). If you exploit a counterparty’s vulnerability or patent misapprehension, expect to find the awesome creative weight of the common law – [[estoppel]], [[constructive trust]]; [[money had and received]], ''[[assumpsit]]'' – incanted against you. | But a court will only do that if one’s intentions were otherwise (as, to be sure, many a merchant’s will be if the opportunity arises to tilt the tables in his favour - Adam Smith had some choice things to say about that). If you exploit a counterparty’s vulnerability or patent misapprehension, expect to find the awesome creative weight of the common law – [[estoppel]], [[constructive trust]]; [[money had and received]], ''[[assumpsit]]'' – incanted against you. | ||