Template:No oral modification capsule: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
“'''[[No oral modification]]'''” is a self-contradictory stricture on an [[amendment agreement]], until 2018 understood by all to be silly fluff put in a contract to appease the lawyers and guarantee them an annuity of tedious work.
“'''[[No oral modification]]'''” is a self-contradictory stricture on an [[amendment agreement]], until 2018 understood by all to be silly fluff put in a contract to appease the lawyers and guarantee them an annuity of tedious work. But as of 2018 it is no longer, as it ought to be, a vacuous piece of legal [[flannel]] — thanks to what we impolitely consider to be an equally vacuous piece of ''legal reasoning'' by no less an eminence than Lord Sumption of the Supreme Court in {{Casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} if one ''says'' one cannot amend a contract except in writing then one will be held to that — even if on the clear evidence the parties to the contract later agreed otherwise.  


No longer, as it ought to be, a vacuous piece of legal [[flannel]] — courtesy of an what we impolitely consider to be a vacuous piece of ''legal reasoning'' by no less an eminence than Lord Sumption of the Supreme Court in {{Casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}.
This is rather like sober me being obliged to act on promises that drunk me made to a handsome ''[[rechtsanwältin]]'' during a argument about [[Schwarzschild radius of alcohol consumption|theoretical physics]] in a nasty bar in Hammersmith after the end-of-year do, which that elegant German attorney can not even remember me making, let alone wishing to see performed.<ref>I know this sounds oddly, ''verisimilitudinally'' specific, but it actually isn’t. I really did just make it up.</ref> Hold my beer.

Latest revision as of 13:02, 16 April 2020

No oral modification” is a self-contradictory stricture on an amendment agreement, until 2018 understood by all to be silly fluff put in a contract to appease the lawyers and guarantee them an annuity of tedious work. But as of 2018 it is no longer, as it ought to be, a vacuous piece of legal flannel — thanks to what we impolitely consider to be an equally vacuous piece of legal reasoning by no less an eminence than Lord Sumption of the Supreme Court in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited if one says one cannot amend a contract except in writing then one will be held to that — even if on the clear evidence the parties to the contract later agreed otherwise.

This is rather like sober me being obliged to act on promises that drunk me made to a handsome rechtsanwältin during a argument about theoretical physics in a nasty bar in Hammersmith after the end-of-year do, which that elegant German attorney can not even remember me making, let alone wishing to see performed.[1] Hold my beer.

  1. I know this sounds oddly, verisimilitudinally specific, but it actually isn’t. I really did just make it up.