Representations and warranties: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 16: Line 16:
Matters of '''fact''' relating to the internal workings of one’s organisation that are not readily apparent to an outsider looking in, and which have a direct bearing on the enforceability of the {{t|contract}}. For example, that execution of the contract has been properly authorised by any internal procedures — this helps in a little way to give comfort that, if push came to shove, the {{t|contract}} could not be set aside as not having been validly entered. Unless you are trading with a municipal authority such as — cue [[dramatic look gopher]] [[File:Dramatic Chipmunk.png|200px|thumb|right|[[Dramatic look gopher]] yesterday]]— [[Orange County]] or [[Hammersmith and Fulham council]], this is a fanciful, [[chicken-licken]]ish fear in this day and age, but it is hardly an imposition to make this rep, so just go with it.  
Matters of '''fact''' relating to the internal workings of one’s organisation that are not readily apparent to an outsider looking in, and which have a direct bearing on the enforceability of the {{t|contract}}. For example, that execution of the contract has been properly authorised by any internal procedures — this helps in a little way to give comfort that, if push came to shove, the {{t|contract}} could not be set aside as not having been validly entered. Unless you are trading with a municipal authority such as — cue [[dramatic look gopher]] [[File:Dramatic Chipmunk.png|200px|thumb|right|[[Dramatic look gopher]] yesterday]]— [[Orange County]] or [[Hammersmith and Fulham council]], this is a fanciful, [[chicken-licken]]ish fear in this day and age, but it is hardly an imposition to make this rep, so just go with it.  


Besides, a [[representation]] (as opposed to a [[warranty]]) in this case gives you a leg to stand on if your {{t|contract}} turns out to be void for [[ultra vires]], as that [[misrepresentation]], freed from the usual shackles of [[concurrent liability]] since there is, [[Q.E.D.]] no contract, dangles before you as an open-and-shut action in [[tort]] for [[negligent misstatement]].
Besides, a [[representation]] (as opposed to a [[warranty]]) in this case gives you a leg to stand on if your {{t|contract}} turns out to be void for [[ultra vires]], as that [[misrepresentation]], freed from the usual shackles of [[concurrent liability]] since there is, [[Q.E.D.]] no contract, dangles fruitily before you as an open-and-shut action in [[tort]] for [[negligent misstatement]].


Some matters of fact — such as your counterparty’s internal motivation or intent in entering the contract — are silly things to seek representations or warranties about, because it is impossible to gainsay them. As legal artifacts, they are completely useless. For a great example of such a useless [[warranty]], see Para {{gmslaprov|14(e)}} of the {{gmsla}}.
Some matters of fact — such as your counterparty’s internal motivation or intent in entering the contract — are silly things to seek representations or warranties about, because it is impossible to gainsay them. As legal artifacts, they are completely useless. For a great example of such a useless [[warranty]], see Para {{gmslaprov|14(e)}} of the {{gmsla}}.

Navigation menu