82,903
edits
Conclusive evidence clause: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support [[indemnities]]. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in [[indemnities]] [[Indemnity|in the usual place]]<ref>Go on — honestly — you’ll love it: {{t|Indemnity}}</ref> but the key point to remember is that, a ''well-crafted'' {{tag|indemnity}}<ref>Much talked about, seldom seen.</ref> is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ''ascertainable sum'' of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what is required to be paid out. | [[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support [[indemnities]]. There’s a wealth of snarkily-presented information in [[indemnities]] [[Indemnity|in the usual place]]<ref>Go on — honestly — you’ll love it: {{t|Indemnity}}</ref> but the key point to remember is that, a ''well-crafted'' {{tag|indemnity}}<ref>Much talked about, seldom seen.</ref> is meant to be a pre-agreement to pay an ''ascertainable sum'' of money: both parties are meant to have a fairly clear handle on what is required to be paid out. | ||
Thus you will see that tell-tale [[caveat]]: “in the absence of [[manifest error]]”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they | Thus you will see that tell-tale [[caveat]]: “in the absence of [[manifest error]]”: where the sum claimed was obvious and not really in dispute; the bank did certify it but a fly got in the typewriter or some such thing and they sent out a certificate containing obviously the wrong number. Well, clearly that’s not conclusive, right? | ||
In the traditional banking world | In the traditional banking world — the one where lenders are prudent community pillars, obtain only the indemnities they need and that can be justified before a jury of their peers, and borrowers understand their place in the world — this is all straightforward: A banker ''ought'' to know how much {{sex|she}} is owed, and how much interest, and how it compounds, and ought not to be subjected to a tedious back-and-forth with a mendacious borrower trying prolong process of paying. That sort of carry-on only benefits one person, as we all know, O dear [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. | ||
But we do not live in such sensible times. The banking world is populated by idiots. These days [[indemnities]] are thrown around willy-nilly in the capital markets business, to cover all kinds of stupidly indeterminate, in appropriate things. It will not shock an experienced counsel to see an indemnity claimed for “any and all losses, costs, damages, liabilities, disbursements, expenses claims of whatever kind we may experience at any time merely as a function of drawing a breath”. | But, alas, we do not live in such sensible times. The banking world is populated by idiots. These days [[indemnities]] are thrown around willy-nilly in the capital markets business, to cover all kinds of stupidly indeterminate, in appropriate things. It will not shock an experienced counsel to see an indemnity claimed for “any and all losses, costs, damages, liabilities, disbursements, expenses claims of whatever kind we may experience at any time merely as a function of drawing a breath”. | ||
This is outrageous, if only in its silliness, but well paid members of the legal profession well defend it to the hilt. Eventually even one with a love of principle over common sense will feel cowed and will give in. Life is too short. | This is outrageous, if only in its silliness, but well paid members of the legal profession well defend it to the hilt. Eventually even one with a love of principle over common sense will feel cowed and will give in. Life is too short. | ||