What if: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{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. | 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. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*[[Chicken Licken]] | *[[Chicken Licken]] | ||
*[[Indemnity]] | *[[Indemnity]] | ||
*[[The farmer and | *[[The farmer and the sheep]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:26, 19 September 2022
|
The JC’s guide to writing nice.™
|
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.