Template:M intro design no-one reads this: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro design no-one reads this (view source)

Revision as of 15:43, 15 March 2024

507 bytes added , 15 March

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,459

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{quote|
 {{maxim|Everyone has a contract until they get punched in the mouth}}
 :—With apologies to Mike Tyson}}
-JC, being given to making up social science on the hoof, is working on a theory that when you buy the services of a commercial law firm — and, specifically, when you buy them to make [[contract]]s for you — you are not buying the words, or even the underlying legal content that the words express, but a more general beatific ''peace of mind'' that comes from hiring clever people. You don’t ''need'' to understand the words or concepts, because someone else has done that for you, and they have  by their simple presence intimated — but letʼs be clear, they definitely havenʼt ''told'' you — that ''everything will be okay''.
-This illusion generally lasts as long as no-one subsequently casts a critical, or even analytical, eye over the documents. The moment they do — no one reads legal agreements for the hell of it, so assume they are reading it because they are being paid to pick holes in it — the illusion of comforting certainty vanishes. Critical grammatical operators —words like “not” —  will be missing where needed and stubbornly there where not. Square brackets, [[blob]]s and placeholders will appear where you dearly wish for [[certainty]]. Critical terms will be subject to non-existent subclasses. Carelessly tossed-in boilerplate will ram-raid carefully crafted terms.
+{{quote|
+{{script|Herculio}}: Ay, drafted, is ’t; <br>
+But to my mind, though inhouse attorney I am<br>
+And to the manner born, this is a condition <br>
+More honour’d in the breach than the observance.
+This heavy-handed sheaf of windy guff <br>
+Doth impose a weighty tax upon our aspirations;<br>
+They clip their tickets and with swinish phrase <br>
+Soil th’accord with oily additions; it takes<br>
+From our consensus, though perform’d at height,<br>
+The pith and marrow of our attribute.
+:—{{otto}}, {{dsh}}
+}}
+JC, being given to making up social science on the hoof, is working on a theory that when you buy the services of a commercial law firm — and, specifically, when you buy them to make [[contract]]s for you — you are not buying the words, or even the underlying legal content that the words express, but a more general beatific ''peace of mind'' that comes from hiring ''serious people''. You don’t ''need'' to understand their words or concepts, because someone else has done that for you and they have, by their simple presence, intimated — but to be clear, they havenʼt ''told'' you — that ''everything will be okay''.
-And you will find, should the agreement have been in place for years, that since it's execution neither side has paid it the blindest bit of attention. No one insist on, or performs, or even knows about hotly contested [[conditions precedent]]. Agreed billing mechanisms and amendment procedures have been ignored. The parties may, quite consensually, have systematically contradicted apparently key tenets of the contract, for years.
+This illusion lasts thereafter as long as no-one casts a critical, or even analytical, eye over the documents. The moment anyone does — and look: no one reads legal agreements for the hell of it, so assume such a person is being paid to pick holes — that illusion of comforting certainty vanishes. Important operators —words like “not” —  will be inexplicably absent when needed and irritatingly there when not. Square brackets, [[blob]]s and placeholders will appear just where you dearly wish for [[certainty]]. Critical terms will be subject to non-existent subclauses. Carelessly-lobbed [[boilerplate]] will ram-raid painstakingly crafted rights.
+And you will find that, since execution neither side has paid any of these words the blindest bit of attention. Why would they? No one has insisted on, performed, or seemed advertent to hotly argued termination rights and [[conditions precedent]]. Agreed billing mechanisms and amendment procedures have been ignored. The parties may, quite consensually, have systematically contradicted apparently key tenets of the contract, for years.
 Then, suddenly, the relationship hits the rocks, each side seeks legal advice, new counsel comb the contract, and finds a babbling, confused, inchoate hellscape of random words that it is now impossible, except by coincidence, to map to the parties actual dealings with each other.