82,891
edits
Legal: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: the law [[supposes|deemed]] you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is a virtue. | But not all legal questions are beyond the layperson’s grasp. By presumption of law, ''none'' of them are: the law [[supposes|deemed]] you know it comprehensively, however paltry your education. In the general run of things, ignorance is no excuse. Within a modern corporation, it is a virtue. | ||
“Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “[[Legal]]” ''can'' opine, of course — nothing gives “[[Legal]]” greater pleasure than sounding off on [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[invitation to treat]] or weighing in on whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is an independent ingredient of the ''[[consensus ad idem]]''<ref>Whatever the learned academics and the courts may say it is not. [[Intention to create legal relations]] is ''the inference you draw'' from an [[accept]]ed [[offer]] supported by [[consideration]].</ref>. | “Legal will need to say when the contract is formed. It is not for me to opine”. This is the sort of senseless thing you hear. “[[Legal]]” ''can'' opine, of course — nothing gives “[[Legal]]” greater pleasure than sounding off on [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[invitation to treat]] or weighing in on whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is an independent ingredient of the ''[[consensus ad idem]]''<ref>Whatever the learned academics and the courts may say it is not. [[Intention to create legal relations]] is ''the inference you draw'' from an [[accept]]ed [[offer]] supported by [[consideration]].</ref>. But contract formation is not alchemy: you do it without pause at the supermarket checkout and when you press a copper into your newsagent’s mitten. | ||
It is binary | Nor is it possible to hedge on the question. It is binary — and this is a matter of logic, not law — for either there ''is'' a contract, or there ''isn’t''. There is no purgatorial state between them. It’s like being pregnant: there is no third way. You must hitch your wagon to one train or the other. So it won’t do for a layperson to defer the question to legal. Before you even have a chance to ask [[Legal]] you have made a call: if you are not prepared to say there ''is'', you are asserting there is ''not''. | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{c|egg}} | {{c|egg}} | ||