Template:M intro isda qualities of a good ISDA: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro isda qualities of a good ISDA (view source)

Revision as of 17:00, 24 February 2024

27 bytes added , 24 February

→‎Fairness

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,387

edits

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 [[Inhouse counsel]] with experience of bona fide, non-existential, customer disputes know one thing: if there is any doubt — and frequently, even when there isn’t — ''the business will roll over''. No-one takes a point with a [[Insolvency|solvent]] client.
-This is commercial common sense: you stand to gain far more in future revenue by preserving your relationship even where that means excusing a customer the occasional gaffe — demonstrating trust in your customer —than you do by taking a literal stance on technical errors. That is ''[[barter]]'' behaviour.
+This is no more than [[commercial imperative|commercial common sense]]: you stand to gain far more by preserving your relationship, even where that means excusing a customer the occasional gaffe, and ''trading'' on it than you do by taking a literal stance on technical indiscretions. That is ''[[barter]]'' behaviour.
-This instinct amongst business people to “just let it go” is so pronounced, indeed, as to unnerve regulators and [[compliance]] teams, who have contrived ways to stop it, for fear it “induces” — a fancy way of saying “bribes” — clients to continue giving business.<ref>Were it not for the deeply embedded [[agency problem]] inside most organisations, by dint of which these  arrangements could well be, this would be a bit silly. As it is, it probably isn’t. The good old [[agency problem]], again.</ref>
+This instinct amongst business people to “just let it go” is so pronounced, indeed, as to unnerve regulators and [[compliance]] departments, who have contrived ways to stop it, for fear it “induces” — a fancy way of saying “bribes” — clients to continue giving business.<ref>Were it not for the deeply embedded [[agency problem]] inside most organisations, by dint of which these  arrangements could well be, this would be a bit silly. As it is, it probably isn’t. There it goes: the good old [[agency problem]], again.</ref>
-In any case, the [[commercial imperative]] is so overwhelming that there is little point in asking for, let alone achieving, terms in contracts that go beyond “fair”. ''No-one will ever use them''. Seeing as, all other things being equal, you will conclude a fair contract faster than an unfair one — {{maxim|the ideal negotiation is no negotiation}} — it behoves you to have a fair template.
+In any case, the [[commercial imperative]] is so overwhelming that there is little point in asking for, let alone achieving, terms in contracts that go beyond “fair”. ''You will never use them''. Seeing as, all other things being equal, you will conclude a fair contract faster than an unfair one — {{maxim|the ideal negotiation is no negotiation}} — it behoves you to have a fair template.
 Make your templates ''fair''.