Third party: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
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.M. 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|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.

Revision as of 19:45, 3 December 2022

Financial cosmology
The JC’s guide to theoretical physics in the markets.™


Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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 inclusos, provisos, provisos, 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.

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.