Successors and assigns: Difference between revisions

{{a|boilerplate|{{subtable|The classic formulation:<br>“This agreement is binding upon, and [[inure]]s to the benefit of, the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns.”}}}}The JC’s love for the tedial minutiae of [[boilerplate]] is deep, but when it comes to pedagogical rigour, he is no match — there ''is'' no match, frankly — for the redoubtable [[Ken Adams]], author of {{br|A Manual of Style for the Drafting of Contacts}}.  

Mr Adams’ violets don’t shrink. Not for him, the JC’s preferred MO of lazily dashing off a couple of sardonic paragraphs to mock the harmless triteness of a time-worn legal catchphrase: Mr. Adams prefers the all-out frontal thermonuclear attack. His medium of choice: the peer-reviewed academic monograph.  

He did one about [[successors and assigns]] in the June 2013 issue of ''Which! Advocate'', and I cannot improve on it in any way, so simply [https://www.adamsdrafting.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Advocate-Successors-Assigns-June-July-2013.pdf commend it to you]. There are ''seven'' possible explanations for a successors and assigns clause, Mr. Adams patiently explains, five are set out in {{author|Tina L. Stark}}’s 700-page {{br|Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate}} — now ''there’s'' a dinner party of the spheres  — Mr. Adams has imagineered up a couple more, and in his meticulous, stone-overturning fashion, persuades us that ''none'' makes any sense.

Ms Stark, charitably, supposes the origin of “[[successors and assigns]]” clause to be so obscure and its modern form so truncated “that its objectives are veiled.” No-one knows what it is for and, as is ''de rigueur'' among fearful [[legal eagles]], what one doesn’t understand one is best to leave well alone.