Good egg: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
8 bytes removed ,  27 October 2016
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
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]]”.  
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 the law of the land is not there to frustrate your [[reasonable]] commercial intentions. A court will only do that if your 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.
But as long as you don’t – if you act [[in good faith and a commercially reasonable manner]] and your love your neighbour as he loves himself; doing unto others only what you would have done unto yourself – you need not fear a wantonly literal construction.
 
But as long as you don’t – if you act [[in good faith and a commercially reasonable manner]] and your client loves his neighbour as he loves himself; does unto others what he would have done unto him neither you nor he should fear a wantonly literal construction.


If that ''is'' your caper, don’t expect words on paper, however exquisitely turned, to help you.
If that ''is'' your caper, don’t expect words on paper, however exquisitely turned, to help you.

Navigation menu