82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}A clause designed to buttress the time-honoured [[parol evidence]] rule, that if it is clear you meant to entirely reduce your agreement to writing, once you have done so the agreement, and no other extraneous evidence, will be the tribunal’s only guide to divining its intention. | {{g}}A clause designed to buttress the time-honoured [[parol evidence]] rule, that if it is clear you meant to entirely reduce your agreement to writing, once you have done so the agreement, and no other extraneous evidence, will be the tribunal’s only guide to divining its intention. Reduces a certain amount of uncertainty, certainly, but at what cost? Litigation expense, for one thing: a clause we imagine was meant to close the door on litigation has, all the same, managed to generate quite a lot of the stuff. | ||
Reduces a certain amount of uncertainty, certainly, but at what cost? | |||
===[[Side letter]]s, [[amendment agreement]]s=== | |||
Some lesser spotted [[legal eagle]]s, apparently struggling with the basic essence of the idea, have even inserted [[entire agreement]] clauses into arrangements which are patently nothing of the sort — [[amendment agreement]]s and [[side letter]]s, for example — and these, by following ineluctable gravity down a path in whose adjoining [[I'm not going to die in a ditch about it|ditches]] and upon whose surrounding hills lie the remains of no men or women who were prepared [[I'm not going to die in a ditch about it|to die in or on them]]', they have ossified into standard [[boilerplate]]. | |||
But an [[entire agreement]] It suggests the [[learned counsel]] have understood every commercial nuance and forensic contingency, even if their clients have not. If also presumes that, having done so, between them they will have successfully memorialised those terms in a prose that speaks with utmost clarity to the commercial bargain. The [[JC]] knows a lot of lawyers and would urge caution against this assumption. | ===Are you feeling lucky?=== | ||
But an [[entire agreement]] It suggests the [[learned counsel]] have understood every commercial nuance and forensic contingency, even if their clients have not. If also presumes that, having done so, between them they will have successfully memorialised those terms in a prose that speaks with utmost clarity to the commercial bargain. The [[JC]] knows a lot of lawyers and would urge caution against this assumption. | |||
It also creates a [[Möbius loop]]. For either your written agreement, on its face, by its own terms and within the parties’ shared expectation, ''is'' the final definitive record of your whole agreement | If they have done so — fat chance, but let’s just say — then there is surely nothing left to doubt, the parties will be happy, there will be no dispute, and all will be well in the world. But should the parties later find themselves at gunpoint, the legal agreement has ''already failed'' at this avowed intent. To now cast your lot with the [[legal eagles]] and whatever they did manage to confabulate is, it seems to this old codger, to double down on an enterprise you already know to have been regrettable. If the merchants’ own discussions, captured in contemporaneous correspondence, casts a different light upon the bargain, then wouldn’t that, rather than their advisers’ ''post facto'' magniloquence, be a better clue to a good resolution? | ||
It also creates a [[Möbius loop]]. For either your written agreement, on its face, by its own terms and within the parties’ shared expectation, ''is'' the final definitive record of your whole agreement “[[with respect to its subject matter]]” — now there’s some [[wieselspiele]] for our times — in which case, your statement to that effect is not needed, or (as the Court of Appeal found in {{cite|Hipwell|Szurek|2018|EWCA(Civ)|674}} it is not, in which case the wording won’t save you. If something that goes without saying, indeed, ''went'' without saying, an [[entire agreement]] clause won’t stop it, as it were, still ''going''. Nothing you can write in the agreement will change that. | |||
===What it really means=== | ===What it really means=== |