Talk, don’t email: Difference between revisions

Talk, don’t email (view source)

Revision as of 16:28, 2 December 2022

234 bytes added , 2 December 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

81,695

edits

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ===External negotiation===
-The same will obtain, a 40 ri, with external negotiation common especially where counsel are involved.
+The same will obtain, ''a fortiori'', with external negotiations, especially where [[counsel]] are involved.
-Here there is the added fritzl of the agency problem thrown in for good measure. What are you to do when presented with a draught that apparently contains errors or diverges from the agreed transaction?
+Here there is the added ''frisson'' of the [[agency problem]] working its immeasurable magic. You are a young associate. Detail is your meat and drink. What to do when presented with a draft at significant divergence from your commercial expectation?
-One of three things can have happened. One: you have misunderstood the transaction. Two: the other side’s counsel has misunderstood the transaction, or sent the wrong doc, or not checked it properly. Three: you both understood the transaction perfectly, but the other side is nefariously trying to retrade.
+One of three things can have happened.
-''The overwhelming odds are that it is one of the first two''. Even if it isn't, the best thing to do by far is to call. You will know soon enough if your counterparty is a rogue. In any case such a call Will quickly resolve any misconceptions common misunderstandings, and and identify that yes, indeed, there has been some costly mistake. That's, you have solved yourself, your counterparty, and your clients, hours of your time that you would otherwise patiently spend and marking up a clearly erroneous document.
+''One'': ''You'' have misunderstood the transaction.
-Remember the maximum if the same circumstance can be explained by malice and stupidity, assume stupidity until you know better.
+''Two'': The other side’s counsel has misunderstood the transaction — or sent the wrong doc, or not checked it properly.
-Intervene with ugly complex . For a paid advisor has little incentives to do the common sense and put in that call. She may be fearful of displaying her own ignorance bracket in scenario 1 if it turns out to be a 2, most likely no one will notice hencewith the dilemma of legal value and the dog didn't bark in the Night-Time.
+''Three'': You both understood the transaction perfectly, but there is some kind of perfidy afoot. The other side is trying to sneak un-agreed points past you wholesale.
+''The overwhelming odds are that it is one of the first two''. Remember [[Hanlon’s razor]]: Do not attribute to ''malice'' things that can just as well be explained by ''stupidity''. Even if it can’t be, the best thing to do, by far, is still to call. You will know soon enough if your counterparty is a rogue. A call will quickly resolve any misconceptions, misunderstandings, and identify that yes, indeed, there has been some ghastly mistake. By making that call you will save yourself, your counterparty and your respective clients hours of time and needless legal clerkship.  But here the  [[legal value]] proposition makes itself plain. No-one will thank you for, or even notice, your efforts to ''obviate'' commercial negotiation.
+For a paid advisor has little incentives to apply common sense and put in that call. She may be fearful of displaying her own ignorance (in scenario one). If it turns out to be scenario two she simply spares her op, most likely no one will notice hencewith the dilemma of legal value and the dog didn't bark in the Night-Time.
 ===Communication as an [[infinite game]]===
 {{onworld and offworld negotiation}}