82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{def|Finance contract|/faɪˈnæns/ /ˈkɒntrækt/|n|}} | ||
Any [[contract]] the gist of which is for its parties to exchange ''large'' — like, ''really'' large — amounts of [[money]], or [[Securities|money-like things]], having readily realisable value, and the performance of which therefore generates significant [[credit risk]], should one of the parties [[Insolvency|blow up]] before it can pay everything it owes under the contract. | Any [[contract]] the gist of which is for its parties to exchange ''large'' — like, ''really'' large — amounts of [[money]], or [[Securities|money-like things]], having readily realisable value, and the performance of which therefore generates significant [[credit risk]], should one of the parties [[Insolvency|blow up]] before it can pay everything it owes under the contract. | ||
Line 43: | Line 41: | ||
|| {{Severability boilerplate capsule}} | || {{Severability boilerplate capsule}} | ||
{{aligntop}} | {{aligntop}} | ||
| [[Counterparts]] || Allows the contract to be signed on different bits of paper || ''No'' contract needs a counterparts clause. Not even a [[finance contract]]. | | [[Counterparts]] || Allows the contract to be signed on different bits of paper || ''No'' contract needs a counterparts clause. Not even a [[finance contract]]. | ||
Sometimes it is important that more than one copy of a document is recognised as an “original” — for [[tax]] purposes, for example, or where “the agreement” must be formally lodged with a land registry. But these cases, involving the conveyance of real estate, are rare — non-existent, indeed, when the field you are ploughing overflows with flowering {{isdama}}s, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and so on. If yours does — and if you are still reading, I can only assume it does, or you are otherwise at some kind of low psychological ebb — a “[[counterparts]]” clause is as useful to you as ''a chocolate tea-pot''. | Sometimes it is important that more than one copy of a document is recognised as an “original” — for [[tax]] purposes, for example, or where “the agreement” must be formally lodged with a land registry. But these cases, involving the conveyance of real estate, are rare — non-existent, indeed, when the field you are ploughing overflows with flowering {{isdama}}s, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and so on. If yours does — and if you are still reading, I can only assume it does, or you are otherwise at some kind of low psychological ebb — a “[[counterparts]]” clause is as useful to you as ''a chocolate tea-pot''. | ||
ANYWAY — if your area of legal speciality ''doesn’t'' care which of your contracts is the “original” — and seeing as, [[Q.E.D.]], they’re identical, why should it? — a counterparts clause is ''a waste of trees''. If the law decrees everyone has to sign the same physical bit of paper (and no legal proposition to our knowledge ''does'', but let’s just say), a clause ''on'' that bit of paper saying that they ''don’t'' have to, is hardly going to help. | ANYWAY — if your area of legal speciality ''doesn’t'' care which of your contracts is the “original” — and seeing as, [[Q.E.D.]], they’re identical, why should it? — a counterparts clause is ''a waste of trees''. If the law decrees everyone has to sign the same physical bit of paper (and no legal proposition to our knowledge ''does'', but let’s just say), a clause ''on'' that bit of paper saying that they ''don’t'' have to, is hardly going to help. | ||
{{aligntop}} | |||
| [[No oral modification]] || Prevents one of your salesguys from modifying the agreement by casual, drunken conversation in a bar ||A self-contradictory stricture on an [[amendment agreement]], until 2018 understood to be fluff put in a contract to appease the lawyers and guarantee them a tedious annuity. But as of 2018, thanks to {{Casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} if one ''says'' one cannot amend a contract except in writing then one will be held to that — even if on the clear evidence the parties to the contract later agreed otherwise. | |||
This is rather like sober me being obliged to act on promises that drunk me made to a handsome ''[[rechtsanwältin]]'' during a argument about [[Schwarzschild radius of alcohol consumption|theoretical physics]] in a nasty bar in Hammersmith after the end-of-year do, which that elegant German attorney can not even remember me making, let alone wishing to see performed.<ref>I know this sounds oddly, ''verisimilitudinally'' specific, but it actually isn’t. I really did just make it up.</ref> Hold my beer. Again, if your contract, and your [[regulatory capital]] treatment, involves the payment of tends of millions of dollars on specific days, by reference to oblique and tendentious reference events over which your [[legal eagle]]s have slaved for months, you don’t want a cretinous [[salesperson]] accidentally detonating your [[leverage ratio]] by having agreed to change them — or even been alleged to have done so — during a well-lubricated trip to the greyhounds at Walthamstow. | |||
Not such a big concern, we submit, if you’re delivering double glazing, or licensing software, where the ability to agree changes on the fly without having to oblige the tedious wordwrights of the supreme court is surely a good thing. | |||
|} | |} | ||