Template:Counterparts capsule: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Counterparts capsule (view source)

Revision as of 17:07, 18 May 2021

1,512 bytes added , 18 May 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Outside the arcane and stupefying word of conveyancing, a “[[counterparts]]” clause is a waste of trees. Indeed: even ''there'', it is a waste of trees, because if you need to have everyone sign the same bit of paper, a counterparts clause, attesting that they don’t have to, won’t work. But do not let that stop your [[legal eagle]]s insisting on one, on pain of cratering the trade altogether, of course: a fellow has to put food on the table for his younglings.
+''Black’s Law Dictionary'' has the following to say on [[counterparts]]:
+:''“Where an instrument of conveyance, as a lease, is executed in parts, that is, by having several copies or duplicates made and interchangeably executed, that which is executed by the grantor is usually called the “original,” and the rest are “[[counterpart]]s;” although, where all the parties execute every part, this renders them all originals.”
-Black’s Law dictionary has the following to say on [[counterparts]]:
+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''.
-:''“Where an instrument of conveyance, as a lease, is executed in parts, that is, by having several copies or duplicates made and interchangeably executed, that which is executed by the grantor is usually called the “original,” and the rest are “[[counterpart]]s;” although, where all the parties execute every part, this renders them all originals.”
+Indeed: even for land lawyers, all it does is sort out which, of a scrum of identical documents signed by different people, is the “original”.  This is doubtless important if you are registering leases in land registries, or whatever other grim minutiae land lawyers care about — we banking lawyers have our own grim minutiae to obsess about, so you should forgive us for not giving a tinker’s cuss about yours, ''die Landadler''. <ref>The [[JC]] has great friends in the land law game, back home in New Zealand, and he doesn’t want to upset them — not that they are the easily upset types.</ref>
+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.
+Mark it, nuncle: there is a [[Chicken-licken|chicken]]-and-[[egg]] problem here; a temporal {{t|paradox}} — and you know how the [[JC]] loves those. For if your contract could only be executed on several pieces of paper ''if the parties agreed that'', then wouldn’t you need them all to sign an agreement, saying just that, on the ''same'' piece of paper? And since, to get that agreement, they ''will'' have to sign the same piece of paper, why don’t you just have done with it and have them all sign the same copy of the blessèd contract, while you are at it?
-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. Away from the gripping world of land law, a [[counterparts]] clause is as useful as a chocolate tea-pot.
+But was there ever a logical ''cul-de-sac'' so neat, so compelling, that it stopped a [[legal eagle]] insisting on stating it anyway, on pain of cratering the trade? There are little eaglets to feed, my friends.