82,893
edits
Conclusive evidence clause: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support — [[dramatic look gopher]] — ''[[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 indemnity|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 will have to be paid out. | [[Conclusive evidence]] clauses are meant to support — [[dramatic look gopher]] — ''[[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 indemnity|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 will have to be paid out. | ||
Of course, as we well know, most [[indemnities]] are ''not'' well-crafted, but will be hopelessly vague, woolly, all-you-can-possibly-think-of affairs — just the kind of thing that ''isn’t'' “readily ascertainable”, at least not without the need for the a full adversarial process, with a day’s cross examination from Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, Q.C., to thrash them out. | Of course, as we well know, most [[indemnities]] are ''not'' well-crafted, but will be hopelessly vague, woolly, all-you-can-possibly-think-of affairs — just the kind of thing that ''isn’t'' “readily ascertainable”, at least not without the need for the a full adversarial process, with a day’s cross examination from [[Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, Q.C.]], to thrash them out. | ||
What to do? Light-bulb moment! Have someone issue a [[certificate of indebtedness]]! Better still, have the counterparty agree, in advance, that it will be conclusive of the amount owed! Brazen though this strategy seems, it must have worked for a time, because we now find conclusive evidence clauses a part of standard [[boilerplate]] in any kinds of financing document — even, entertainingly, those without [[indemnities]] — to the point where few people know what the provision is even for, and even fewer challenge it. Well, dear reader, now you do, and you can! | What to do? Light-bulb moment! Have someone issue a [[certificate of indebtedness]]! Better still, have the counterparty agree, in advance, that it will be conclusive of the amount owed! Brazen though this strategy seems, it must have worked for a time, because we now find conclusive evidence clauses a part of standard [[boilerplate]] in any kinds of financing document — even, entertainingly, those without [[indemnities]] — to the point where few people know what the provision is even for, and even fewer challenge it. Well, dear reader, now you do, and you can! | ||