What if: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a transactional lawyer. | Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a [[Mediocre lawyer|transactional lawyer]]. | ||
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen [[contingencies]]. To do this, the [[draftsperson]] has many tools at her disposal: [[force majeure]] clauses, [[indemnities]], [[termination rights]], and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine [[valuation dispute]] clauses. | |||
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should determinatively address contingencies now that may not predictably be resolved at the time they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: [[amendment]]. | |||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Force majeure]] | |||
*[[Chicken Licken]] | *[[Chicken Licken]] | ||
*[[Indemnity]] | *[[Indemnity]] | ||
*[[The farmer and his sheep]] | *[[The farmer and his sheep]] | ||
Revision as of 08:03, 20 April 2017
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a transactional lawyer.
Part of the paranoid delight of transactional drafting is catering for unforeseen contingencies. To do this, the draftsperson has many tools at her disposal: force majeure clauses, indemnities, termination rights, and a propensity to draft ornate, byzantine valuation dispute clauses.
But there remains in all of these a guiding principle: one should determinatively address contingencies now that may not predictably be resolved at the time they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: amendment.