81,841
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|cosmology|}}If we take it it as granted, per the experimental [[lexophysics]] of pioneers such as [[J.F | {{a|cosmology|}}If we take it it as granted, per the experimental [[lexophysics]] of pioneers such as [[J. M. F. Biggs]] that traditional Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe the [[space-tedium continuum]], with its in-folded [[incluso]]s, [[proviso]]s, [[proviso]]s, then we have to consider whether the usual three-dimensional model of the legal universe is still fit for purpose. | ||
A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“[[Party A]]” and “[[Party B]]” or, for old fashioned finance types, “[[Bank]]” and “[[Borrower]]”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties. | A naive view of commerce would say there are three “dimensions”: the two contractual counterparties (“[[Party A]]” and “[[Party B]]” or, for old fashioned finance types, “[[Bank]]” and “[[Borrower]]”) and then the remainder of the universe comprising disinterested third parties. | ||
Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | Tony Blair, of all people, tried to warp the continuum with his ill-fated [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]]. The idea was to confer upon ''third'' parties some of [[fruits of the contract]] where the first and second parties deliberately intended it. This could make a third party some kind of second and a half party as if reduced by some fractal proportion. |