82,891
edits
Template:M summ GMSLA 27.5: Difference between revisions
Template:M summ GMSLA 27.5 (view source)
Revision as of 08:29, 17 September 2021
, 17 September 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[27.5 - GMSLA Provision|Classic]] over-communication from {{islacds}}. Nothing in the {{gmsla}} says you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor,<ref>In Mike’s immortal words from the [[I never said you couldn’t|Nasty]] episode, “Well it wouldn’t, would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”</ref> and there are no confidentiality provisions, so plainly, this clause is not needed. | [[27.5 - GMSLA Provision|Classic]] over-communication from {{islacds}}. Nothing in the {{gmsla}} says you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor,<ref>In Mike’s immortal words from the [[I never said you couldn’t|Nasty]] episode, “Well it wouldn’t, would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”</ref> and there are no confidentiality provisions, so plainly, this clause is not needed. | ||
''“But [[it won’t hurt]] to include it”'', | ''“But [[it won’t hurt]] to include it”'', {{islacds}} must have thought. | ||
Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup. | Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{islacds}} might think on this from a [[behavioural economics]] perspective: If this clause did not exist, no-one would imagine it needed limiting: it doesn’t say anywhere that you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor if that’s what you want to do, and, in the world of commerce, provided you don’t transgress your positive [[contractual obligation|contractual obligations]], you are free to do as you please. But, by saying it, you ask a silly question and invite a silly answer. Few assiduous attorneys will pass up the free opportunity to give one of those. | {{islacds}} might think on this from a [[behavioural economics]] perspective: If this clause did not exist, no-one would imagine it needed limiting: it doesn’t say anywhere that you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor if that’s what you want to do, and, in the world of commerce, provided you don’t transgress your positive [[contractual obligation|contractual obligations]], you are free to do as you please. But, by saying it, you ask a silly question and invite a silly answer. Few assiduous attorneys will pass up the free opportunity to give one of those. | ||
===''A'' third party vendor?=== | |||
Note the rather clangorous dissonance between the party’s permission to appoint “a” third-party vendor top process its loans, and its approval to share relevant data with such ''vendors''. A grammatical clanger from the ’squad, to be sure, but it somewhat undermines the scope for [[That Guy]] to raise the point in negotiations, or some subsequent squabble, that in permitting the parties to appoint ''one'' vendor this impliedly forbids them from appointing ''more than one''. | |||