82,446
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) 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 | 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}} |