Template:Counterparts capsule: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Counterparts capsule (view source)

Revision as of 17:07, 18 May 2021

14 bytes added , 18 May 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 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?
+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?
-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.
+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.