What if: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Oh, the fertile, febrile mind of a transactional lawyer.
{{a|drafting|}}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 only address contingencies ''now'' that cannot predictably be resolved ''later'' — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: ''[[amendment]]''. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, ''cost'' of finalising your contract.


{{seealso}}
{{sa}}
*[[Highly unlikely]]
*[[Force majeure]]
*[[Chicken Licken]]
*[[Chicken Licken]]
*[[Indemnity]]
*[[Indemnity]]
*[[The farmer and his sheep]]
*[[The farmer and the sheep]]

Latest revision as of 21:26, 19 September 2022

The JC’s guide to writing nice.™


Index: Click to expand:

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

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 only address contingencies now that cannot predictably be resolved later — that is to say, in the unlikely event they arise. For those contingencies, one has a simpler approach: amendment. For the certainty gained by catering for these contingencies comes at the cost of length, complexity, aggravation and, well, cost of finalising your contract.

See also