82,891
edits
Template:Isda 9(f) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Waiver: a place where the laws of the New World and the Old diverge. Does one really need a contractual provision dealing with the consequences of a fellow’s good-nature...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Since the {{isdama}} was designed with ''either'' legal system in mind, {{icds}} came up with something that would work in either. To be sure, it is [[calculated]] to offend literary stylists and those wholse attention span favours minimalism amongst those who ply their trade in the old country, ''but it does no harm''. | Since the {{isdama}} was designed with ''either'' legal system in mind, {{icds}} came up with something that would work in either. To be sure, it is [[calculated]] to offend literary stylists and those wholse attention span favours minimalism amongst those who ply their trade in the old country, ''but it does no harm''. | ||
{{Course of dealing | ===Different approaches to evidence of the contract in the UK and US=== | ||
England and the US have taken different paths when it comes to respecting the sanctity of that four-cornered document representing the contract. Whereas the [[parol evidence]] rule gives the written form a kind of “epistemic priority” over any other articulation of the abstract deal in the [[common law]], in the new world greater regard will be had of how the parties behave when performing their contract, and less significance on what at the outset they wrote down. | |||
So whereas in England action to not insist upon strict contractual rights will have scarce effect on those rights (at best a [[waiver by estoppel]] might arise, at least until it is withdrawn<ref>{{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}}</ref>), in the United States [[Uniform Commercial Code]]<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-303 § 1-303. ''Course of Performance, Course of Dealing, and Usage of Trade''].</ref> a “[[course of dealing]]” between the parties at variance with the written terms of their bargain will tend to override those written terms. Thus, by not insisting on the strict terms of her deal, an American risks losing that deal, and will be taken by the [[course of dealing]] to have agreed something else; whereas an Englishman, by granting such an indulgence, at worst suspends his strict contractual rights but does not lose them. | |||
In this way the [[parol evidence]] rule is less persuasive in American [[jurisprudence]] than in British. <br> | |||