What if: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
193 bytes added ,  20 April 2017
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses.
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses.


But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should determinatively address contingencies now that may not predictably be resolved at the time they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: [[amendment]].
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should only address contingencies ''now'' that cannot predictably be resolved ''later'' — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: [[amendment]]. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, ''cost'' of finalising your contract.
 
 


{{seealso}}
{{seealso}}

Navigation menu