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

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

Revision as of 14:55, 18 March 2024

265 bytes removed , 18 March

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,510

edits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Given as he is to making social science up on the hoof, JC is working on a theory that when we buy the services of a commercial law firm — and, specifically, when we buy them to make [[contract]]s for us — we are not buying ''words'', nor even the underlying ''legal content'' that they carry, but a more general, beatific ''peace of mind'' that comes from paying ''serious people'' to do sober things for us.
-We don’t ''need'' to understand these words or content, because our sober agents have done this for us and, by their simple presence (the agentsʼ as much as their words), intimated — but to be clear, not ''told'' you in so many words — that ''everything will be okay''.
+We don’t ''need'' to understand the words, because our agents have done this for us. By their very existence, our agents intimate to us that ''everything will be okay''.
-This comforting illusion lasts as long afterwards as no one casts an eye across the documents. The moment anyone does — and look: no one reads legal agreements for the hell of it, so assume she is being paid to pick holes in them — the illusion tartly vanishes.
+This illusion lasts as long as no one subsequently casts an eye across the documents. The moment anyone does — and, look: no one reads legal agreements for the hell of it, so assume she will be paid to pick holes in them — it tartly vanishes.
 Crucial operators — words like “not” —  will, without explanation, be absent when needed or present when not. Square brackets, [[blob]]s and placeholders will impotently stand in for pivotal passages and vital variables. Forms you now dearly wish were signed, dated and legibly filled-out won’t be. Critical terms will be subject to non-existent subclauses. Carelessly lobbed [[boilerplate]] will ram-raid painstakingly crafted rights.<ref>Our old friends the [[no oral modification]] clause and the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] exclusion are often causes for deep regret.</ref>
-And that is where the parties ''have'' kept their original deal continuously in mind. But life is rarely as mundane as that: invariably, since upon signing they bid their legal teams a fond farewell fifteen years ago, ''neither'' side has paid these terms the blindest bit of attention. They may not know where they now are or, if enough time has passed, even if there ''are'' any such terms.
+And that is when the parties ''have'' kept their original deal in mind. But life is rarely as mundane as that: invariably, since they bade their legal teams a fond farewell fifteen years ago, ''neither'' side has paid these terms the blindest bit of attention. They may not now know where they are. If enough time has passed, they may not even know that there ''are'' any such terms.
-''Why would they?'' However hotly they once were argued for, no one since has insisted on, performed, or adverted to those covenants and termination. No-one who was present at their ordination is now around: he last was made redundant in 2008. By their consensual behaviour the parties have systematically contradicted key tenets of the contract for years.
+''Why would they?'' However hotly they were once contested, no one since has insisted on, performed, or cared less about these covenants. No-one who was present at their ordination remains: the last was made redundant in 2008. By their consensual behaviour, the parties have systematically contradicted these key tenets for years.
-None of this matters in the slightest unless the relationship hits the skids. Suddenly each side seeks legal advice, their new counsel, rejoicing in a fresh licence to create mayhem, comb the contract, poring over minor details, hunting for clinchers in a babbling, confused, inchoate hellscape of random words that it is now impossible, except by coincidence, to map to any coherent course of behaviour — let alone the partiesʼ ''actual'' dealings with each other.
+None of this matters unless the relationship hits the skids. Suddenly, each side seeks legal advice. Their new counsel comb the contract, poring over minor details, hunting for clinchers in a babbling, confused, inchoate hellscape of random words that it is now impossible, except by coincidence, to map to any coherent course of behaviour — let alone the partiesʼ ''actual'' dealings with each other.
-This is because the parties delegated this performative act — you know, “doing the legals” — to [[legal eagle|lab coated specialists]] with a threadbare grasp of the commercials even at the time of their engagement who, not having been involved since, have no grasp of it now, and who hardly can be blamed for failing to predict how the relationship would  develop in between times.
+This is because the parties delegated this performative act — you know, “doing the legals” — to [[legal eagle|lab coated specialists]] with the barest grasp of the commercials then and who, not having been involved since, have none now — who hardly can be blamed for failing to predict how the relationship would develop in between times.
-Commissioning legal contracts in this way is to pay good money to buy (or, for all you know, ''sell'') a lucky dip of random [[put]]s and [[call]]s. What you pulled out of the barrel on signing day is then buried in peat,  only to be revealed, if at all, a long time later upon the advent of [[tail event|catastrophe]]. Your best hope, therefore, is that ''no such catastrophe visits'", your relationship continues to flourish and no one ever looks at the contract again.
+Commissioning legal contracts in this way is to pay good money to buy (or, for all you know, ''sell'') a lucky dip of random [[put]]s and [[call]]s. What you pull out of the barrel on signing day is then buried in peat,  only to be revealed, if at all, a long time later upon the eve of [[tail event|catastrophe]].
-Which begs the question: ''what are you paying for?''
+Your best hope, therefore, is that no such catastrophe visits, your relationship continues to flourish and ''no one ever looks at the contract again. ''Which begs the question: ''what are you paying lawyers for?''
-The ugly secret of professional practice is that much work product is like that because, for the most part, ''it doesnʼt matter if it is not''.
+The ugly secret of professional practice is that much work product can be like that because, for the most part, ''it doesnʼt matter if it is not''. A vanishingly small percentage of contracts are ever litigated. This is ''not'' because they are “good contracts” but because they describe good relationships: their parties donʼt fall out. ''Almost all contracts expire untested.'' {{maxim|If you have to read the contract, you have already lost}}.
-A vanishingly small percentage of contracts are ever litigated. This is ''not'' because they are “good contracts” but because they describe good relationships: their parties donʼt fall out. ''Almost all contracts expire untested.''{{maxim|If you have to read the contract, you have already lost}}. </ref>
 To its principals, the contract preparation process is a sombre mystery. They are not ''meant'' to understand the actual words, and may cause themselves trouble if they try. It is better just to take generalised comfort that there are a ''lot'' of words, they seem legally sonorous, they are strung together in carefully constructed, if forbiddingly unbroken, slabs and the battalions of advisors who have gathered at the banquet on either side to pick them over will, by the time the busboys are serving coffee and warming up the disco, have {{strike|maximised their chargeables|made peace with the legal content}}.