82,890
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 {{tag|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>And here, as ever, your devoted correspondent finds himself drifting free of the moorings of legal consensus. For whatever the learned academics and our storied magistrates, in their exposition of the [[common law]]’s golden stream, may previously have said, it is ''not''. [[Intention to create legal relations]] is ''the inference you draw'' from an [[accept]]ed [[offer]] supported by [[consideration]].</ref>. But {{tag|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. | “Legal will need to say when the {{tag|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>And here, as ever, your devoted correspondent finds himself drifting free of the moorings of legal consensus. For whatever the learned academics and our storied magistrates — including no lesser luminaries than Lord Atkin himself, in {{cite|Balfour|Balfour|1919|2KB|571}} — in their exposition of the [[common law]]’s golden stream, may previously have said, it is ''not''. [[Intention to create legal relations]] is ''the inference you draw'' from an [[accept]]ed [[offer]] supported by [[consideration]].</ref>. But {{tag|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. | ||
Nor can you hedge on the question until your [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]] arrives. 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. It’s like being pregnant. So it won’t do 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''. | Nor can you hedge on the question until your [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]] arrives. 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. It’s like being pregnant. So it won’t do 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''. | ||