Template:M intro technology Better call ChatGPT: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro technology Better call ChatGPT (view source)

Revision as of 15:02, 8 February 2024

451 bytes added , 8 February

→‎The oblique purposes of formal contracts

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,022

edits

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ====The oblique purposes of formal contracts====
-{{Drop|T}}here is one peculiarity that a literal approach to contract review cannot address, but we should mention: sometimes a contract’s true significance is tangential to its content. Sometimes, the detail is not the point.<ref>This is, broadly, true of all contracts from execution until formal enforcement. The overwhelming majority of contracts are never formally enforced.</ref>
+{{Drop|T}}here is one peculiarity that a literal approach to contract review cannot address, but we should mention: sometimes a contract’s true significance runs tangentially to its content. The forensic detail is not always the point.<ref>This is, broadly, true of all contracts, from execution until formal enforcement — and the overwhelming majority of contracts are never formally enforced.</ref>
-Sometimes the ''act'' of finely thrashing the details out frustrates the true purpose of the contract, which is to fulfil a sociological function. As a commitment signal or competence signal.
+Sometimes the ''act'' of finely thrashing the details out even ''frustrates'' the true purpose of the contract, which is to fulfil a sociological function. As a commitment signal or competence signal.
-A basic example: European financial services regulations require institutions to have written contracts with their customers, as an end in itself. They are less prescriptive about what they should say
+A basic example: European financial services regulations require institutions to have written contracts with all customers, as a regulatory end in itself. They are less prescriptive about what the contracts should ''say''. You must, therefore, have a written contract to do business. To meet that end, ''any'' delay in finalising the contract in the name of “getting it right” is cause for regret.<ref>You might be surprised how often firms are obliged to negotiate their terms and conditions, in that it is not “never”.</ref>
-As a mating ritual, of sorts: a performative ululation of customary cultural verities meant signal that yes, we care about the same things you do, are of the right stuff, the same mind and our ad idems are capable of consensus.
+In other cases contracts act as a mating ritual, of sorts: a performative ululation of customary cultural verities meant signal that yes, we care about the same things you do, are of the right stuff, the same mind and our ad idems are capable of consensus. Again, it matters less what the contract says then it is ''there''.
-If it is that — most NDAs are that — then descending into the subterranean world of pedantry and exactitude that an LLM offers, in the service of “picking up things that even a trained paralegal might not” can be even counterproductive.  The point is to carry out the ritual; accord these pleasantries the required respect but to not labour them.
+If it is that — most [[NDA]]s are that — then descending into the subterranean pedantry and exactitude that an LLM offers, in the service of “picking up things that even a trained paralegal might not” can be even counterproductive.  The point is to carry out the ritual; accord these pleasantries the required respect but to not labour them.
 Now. That aside: with high-volume, low-risk legal processes — especially where they do not play a part in the courting rites — the name of the game is not fast, efficient and precise negotiation, but no negotiation. Negotiation is the problem. If you find customers regularly negotiate your standard terms of business, or you get regular snarl-ups on procurement processes and end-user sale contracts you have bad contracts. Fix them.