|
Posted by on September 29, 2006, 3:37 pm
>
>> ... Among other things, I got caught in the
>> vagaries of the payout schedule. It seemed clear when we signed the
>> contract, we'd pay a certain amount as each piece of work was "completed."
>> Since we never defined what "completed" was, the builder got to decide.
>...
>
>That's perhaps an example of an incomplete or ambiguous contract, or it
>could have been written specifically that way on purpose and got
>through. Was it clear from contract language the builder was the sole
>arbiter of "completed", or did he just assert it?
From your two years of business law, you will recall that clarity
(capable of interpretation) is one of the conditions required for
there to be a contract, and no doubt you will also recall that where
there is ambiguity, the contract is interpreted *against* the
interests of the author.
>
>And, yes, writing complete (and fair) contracts _is_ difficult which is
>why there are lawyers, amongst other reasons. And, of course, there is
>still the fact that fundamentally, even good contracts are only as good
>as the signatories' willingness to live up to them.
This is very true. Which is why my contracts are short and simple.
Two pages, max. Plain english.
If the client wants to wriggle out, I'm happy to lose him. If he
acts badly, I'll dump him. Contract or no.
Ken
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap