![]() It's not a thing we sanely have achieved in thousands of years of law, contracts, etc. ![]() ![]() One of the reasons we have judges in the first place is because the desire to codify all possibilities is not achievable. In the other, you have to have completed the often impossible task of thinking and codifying every edge case and possibility. In one case, you have a judge looking at the spirit of the contract and making some reasonable decision about what should happen. But in the general case, in fact, it makes it much much worse than we have now. I get the desire by engineers, and even the desire in some forms of contracts. Meanwhile, the thinking you are espousing turns out to be pretty much impossible in practice even if you wanted it to be so. (choose any metric, in fact, and you'll see they've scaled just fine) The number of contracts litigated in the situation you are talking, as a percentage of overall contracts in those situations, is ridiculously small. (lawyer here, but i don't make a living at it so i have no care :P) Never underestimate the value of a good technicality or shrug off a negative one. While this probably didn't save them or their customers taxes anywhere, it did help their customers the wiggle room to actually be customers in the 1960s. They made 14 minicomputers in the PDP line, and the PDP-11 was manufactured until 1996, just two years before the acquisition by Compaq. They impact taxes, product labels, advertising, and more.Īt one time there were customers who couldn't get budget room for a computer, so Digital Equipment Corporation sold them the Programmable Digital Processor because automated processing was fine. Jaffa Cakes, Budweiser, and other products have had similar cases in different places as to what they are or are not. Well, are Pringles "potato chips" ("crisps")? The legal answer has changed over time and there are taxes to be paid in one case that's not paid in the other. It depends on the quality of the evidence also, the standards vary somewhat by jurisdiction. But "scrivener's error" is often a valid basis for showing a mutual mistake. Mutual mistake must be proven by the high standard of "clear and convincing evidence", as opposed to the normal standard in civil cases of "preponderance of the evidence", and in general there's a heavy presumption that the text reflects the parties' intent. A "mutual mistake" is when both parties are mistaken on the other hand, a "unilateral mistake" (by one party) generally will not be corrected, unless there's also an element of fraud. However, there are a number of exceptions to that rule, and one of them is that you can introduce extrinsic evidence to try to prove the existence of a "mutual mistake", which can be grounds for "reformation" of a contract (i.e. from the negotiation process) that the parties' intent was something other than what was written. To summarize, there's something called the "parol evidence rule" which boils down to: if you have a final written agreement, and the text of the agreement is clear, you usually can't introduce extrinsic evidence (e.g. It actually is possible (in the United States) for a court to alter the terms based on evidence of a clerical error, if the evidence is strong enough. I may have been a bit too confident about whether the text would have been enforced.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |