Template:Indemnity description: Difference between revisions

Template:Indemnity description (view source)

Revision as of 09:36, 19 July 2016

509 bytes added , 19 July 2016

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Indemnities are generally viewed as onerous obligations. A request for one will usually be met with a sharp intake of breath, particularly from the legal department.
+In an attorney's miserable existence, few things are more apt to excite the animal spirits than the request of an indemnity. Yet an indemnity is nothing more than a contractual promise to pay a defined sum should a pre-agreed circumstance - not being a breach of contract - arise. If used this way it can be a sensible way to allocate risk.
-Indemnities are nothing more than a contractual promises to pay an ascertainable amount of money should a defined circumstance arise, but boy do people get bent out of shape about them. There is much misapprehension. Much Fear. Much Loathing. Much ignorance.
+{{box|an indemnity is nothing more than a contractual promise to pay a defined sum should a pre-agreed circumstance arise.}}
-An {{tag|indemnity}} ''isn't'' better than a contractual right of suit. It ''isn't'' quicker. It ''doesn't'' have different accounting or capital consequences. It ''isn't'', of itself, more severe. Nor is it inherently more broad or of less determinate scope. The sky won't fall in if you give an indemnity. It won't fall in if you don't get one from your counterparty either.
+But the indemnity has suffered a bit of continental drift and is now seen, by those who believe they're entitled to one, as a kind of smart bomb that will assassinate all evil, vouchsafing loved ones to the bosom of the Earth. To those asked to provide one, on the other hand, the notion has the hue of the closing stages of a Joseph Conrad novel. Because of this misuse, there is much misapprehension. Much Fear. Much Loathing. Much ignorance.
+but, in and of itself, an {{tag|indemnity}} isn't ''better'' than a contractual claim. It ''is'' a contractual claim.  It ''doesn't'' have different accounting or capital consequences. It ''isn't'', of itself, more severe. Nor is it, inherently, more broad or of less determinate scope. The sky won't fall in if you give a properly crafted indemnity. It won't fall in if you don't get one, either.
 At its extremity you can only enforce an indemnity by taking legal action for breach of contract: namely the failure to pay under an indemnity claim.