81,898
edits
Successors and assigns: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
As we all know by now, Mr. Adams’ violets don’t shrink. Not for ''him'' the JC’s preferred M.O. of dashing off a couple of lazy paragraphs to mock the feckless vacuity of a time-worn legal catchphrase. Indeed, no: Mr. Adams prefers the all-out frontal thermonuclear attack. His medium of choice: the peer-reviewed academic monograph. | As we all know by now, Mr. Adams’ violets don’t shrink. Not for ''him'' the JC’s preferred M.O. of dashing off a couple of lazy paragraphs to mock the feckless vacuity of a time-worn legal catchphrase. Indeed, no: 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 | 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 justifications for a successors and assigns clause, Mr. Adams patiently explains; five can be found in {{author|Tina L. Stark}}’s 700-page {{br|Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate}} — now ''there’s'' a dinner party of the spheres — and Mr. Adams has imagineered up a couple more. In his meticulous, stone-turning fashion, he persuades us: ''not a one of them makes a jot of 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”: since no-one knows what it is for and it does no harm, as is ''de rigueur'' among fearful [[legal eagles]], what one doesn’t understand one is best to leave well alone. Hence its improbable survival, a male nipple for the legal set. | 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”: since no-one knows what it is for and it does no harm, as is ''de rigueur'' among fearful [[legal eagles]], what one doesn’t understand one is best to leave well alone. Hence its improbable survival, a male nipple for the legal set. | ||