82,891
edits
What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with (view source)
Revision as of 17:55, 1 February 2021
, 1 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|maxim| | {{a|maxim| | ||
[[File:Terry.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A chef getting away with what the eye don’t see, yesterday.]] | [[File:Terry.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A chef getting away with what the eye don’t see, yesterday.]] | ||
}}A vital part of pragmatic jurisprudence, neatly captured by the {{tag|Latin}} {{t|maxim}} | }}A vital part of pragmatic jurisprudence, neatly captured by the JC’s homely, home-made {{tag|Latin}} {{t|maxim}}: “''[[quod oculo non videt coquus non est culpandum]]''”: what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with. | ||
===Representations you can never know are false until it is too late=== | ===Representations you can never know are false until it is too late=== | ||
[[Covenant]]s, [[representations]] or [[warranties]] by which you expect counterparties to promptly advise you of their [[breach of contract]] to you. The present contract, or another one. For such a covenant to be meaningful it must be a breach about which you cannot realistically expect to ever find out, unless your counterparty owns up. And, I suppose, so he might. But isn’t the fellow who does a little bit like the chap who blasphemes at his own stoning? If you are already in fundamental breach of your contract, are you really making things any worse for yourself by drawing your client’s attention to it? You are, it is submitted, not. Indeed, practically speaking, you are making things worse. Now of course we don’t condone wilful breach of contract, but we do observe that you should expect it. It might not be good behaviour, but it ''is'' rational. There might be a chance to ''fix'' the latent breach before anyone notices. ''What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with''. The saying goes: you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. And better still, if you keep shtum, you’ll get away with ''both''. | [[Covenant]]s, [[representations]] or [[warranties]] by which you expect counterparties to promptly advise you of their [[breach of contract]] to you. The present contract, or another one. For such a covenant to be meaningful it must be a breach about which you cannot realistically expect to ever find out, unless your counterparty owns up. And, I suppose, so he might. But isn’t the fellow who does a little bit like the chap who blasphemes at his own stoning? If you are already in fundamental breach of your contract, are you really making things any worse for yourself by drawing your client’s attention to it? You are, it is submitted, not. Indeed, practically speaking, you are making things worse. Now of course we don’t condone wilful breach of contract, but we do observe that you should expect it. It might not be good behaviour, but it ''is'' rational. There might be a chance to ''fix'' the latent breach before anyone notices. ''What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with''. The saying goes: you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. And better still, if you keep shtum, you’ll get away with ''both''. | ||