Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Balkan intrigues ... Old coppers stagger into the Croatian Six inquiry ... 15-year jail terms in 1980 for alleged terrorism ... Miscarriage of justice under review ... Verballing ... Loading-up ... Old fashioned detective "work" ... Evidence so far ... Hamish McDonald reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Splitting heirs ... How to get rid of the Royals – a Republican tours Orstraya … Underneath their robes – sexual harassment on the bench … Credit card fees – so tricky that only economists know what to do … Muted response to Drumgold vindication … Vale Percy Allan ... Read on ... 

The Financial Times examines criminal trial delays in England & Wales ... About 70,000 cases on waiting lists at Crown Courts ... More >>

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Blue sky litigation ... Another costly Lehrmann decision ... One more spin on the never-never ... Arguable appeal discovered in the bowels of the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Odious litigants ... Could Lee J have got it wrong on the meaning of rape? ... Calpurnia reports from the Defamatorium ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Online incitements ... Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London ... Read more >> 

"Mistakes of law or fact are a professional inevitability for judges, tribunal members and administrative decision makers."  

Paul Brereton, Commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission, downplaying the Inspector's finding of bias and procedural unfairness with his conflicted involvement in the decision making about Robodebt referrals ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Vale Percy Allan AM ... Obit for friend and fellow-traveller ... Prolific writer on economics and politics ... Public finance guru ... Technocrat with humanity and broad interests ... Theatre ... Animals ... Art ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

A triumph for Victorian morality ... Ashton v Pratt ... In the sack with Dick Pratt ... Meretricious sexual services renders contract void on public policy grounds ... Justice Paul Brereton applies curious moral standard ... A whiff of hypocrisy ... Doubtful finding ... Artemus Jones reporting ... From Justinian's Archive, January 24, 2012 ... Who knew the NACC commissioner had strong views on the sanctity of marriage ... Read more ... 


 

 

« Doing a runner from the cab rank principle | Main | Barristerial schtick »
Monday
Nov012010

Rules of Engagement

Negoitation of a contract ... Inference about Dorothy's commercial nous ... Rules of Engagement ... Clause 76.5(e)(iv)(D) ... Dorothy Says 

Today, at their behest, I met with Mike and Simmo to discuss their progress with the negotiation of a contract I had commented on a fortnight ago.

Mike and Simmo are part of a large client team working on an enormous project.

Mike is a spherical, forty something "big picture man" who prides himself on "doing the deal" in "double quick time" with what he calls "commercial efficacy".

Simmo is a sub-thirty AFL playing lawyery1 consultant, a "good bloke", who aspires to be a taller, but, on current indications, less hirsute version of Mike. He has, in relation to this contract, a "sense of ownership".

Swathes of the contract made little sense and I would usually have recommended radical surgery, but as Mike and Simmo had pressed upon me that they had progressed the negotiations quite a way I contained myself to a short list, which could be easily negotiated - in about 35 minutes if there was a rational person on the other side - and would save the client a lot of grief and, not inconceivably, $1.5 billion.

Mike opened the meeting by asking if George was coming.  (I have been working on this deal with George, my colleague in the trenches.)

"As far as I know," I said cheerily, still at the paper arranging, pen searching stage of the meeting, "although he was on a plane this morning so he might be a little late".

"It's just that we need someone on this with a bit of commercial nous," said Mike.

There was a pause as the ambient temperature plummeted about twelve degrees.

I am a commercial lawyer: commercial nous is what I do. If he had said to me, "you are a big fat ugly tart", it would have been less offensive (and just as true - I am not big, fat, ugly or a tart).

In these circumstances, one must apply the Rules of Engagement.

Rule 1: MAINTAIN DIGNITY: remain calm, do not shout, and do not respond with offensive remarks.

I calmly looked Mike in the eye for quite a long time, one eyebrow faintly raised, smiling slightly. The smile was to stop my lips wobbling, which often occurs in moments of anger or upset.

Mike locked eyes, but I noted with some satisfaction that he was unable to raise his eyebrow.

Rule 2: SEEK PARTICULARS, while continuing to apply rule 1.

"Well," I said, "what would be best here? Shall we go through my comments one by one?"

Simmo said: "What we need from you today is your sign off. You just need to understand that X [the other party] would never agree to your changes."

Two key pieces of information were imparted in that statement.

The first was that the only reason they want my advice is because a person higher up the client chain wants my written assurance that their $1.5 billion is safe, so that they can sue me if it all turns to shit.

The second was that Simmo, despite having had the comments for two weeks, had not raised them with the other party, so would not actually know whether they will agree to them or not.

Rule 3 is that when, as invariably occurs, persons casting aspersions try to shirk giving particulars, insist. While applying Rule 1.

"OK then," I said, "let's go through the comments shall we?"

Mike said, in an exasperated, eye rolly tone, "Alright, if that is what it will take".

It quickly became apparent that Mike had not read the comments or, for that matter, the agreement.

There was a short halt while I secured copies of those documents for him.

During the hiatus, applying subrule 1(a) [if necessary to alleviate a build up of frost, talk about sport], I made some jovial observations about the state of cricket on the subcontinent.

After we agreed that comments 1 and 2 were unlikely to cause the other party any disquiet, we got to comment 3.

Simmo, with as little a bang on the table as a person who is six-foot-four-and-a-half can manage, put the proposition that all was solved by the seventh dot point in clause 76.5(e)(iv)(D), which he had drafted to address just that issue.

Mike frowned as he concentrated on reading clause 76.5(e)(iv)(D).

This took some time because clause 76.5(e)(iv)(D) was unintelligible: grammatically, legally, factually and in every other sense.

"I see what you are saying," he said to me at last, "but don't we just need to delete this clause and insert ['but only if the cat gets sick'2]?"

I tried not to look triumphal as I leaned across the table and pointed to my comments that said, "this could most easily be dealt with by replacing clause 76.5(e)(iv)(D) with the words ['but only if the cat gets sick']".

The meeting ended shortly thereafter, with a satisfactory outcome for everything except my blood pressure, which I resolved in the usual way by going home to share a bottle and a half of red with the kind and patient man I had the good sense, some years ago, to marry.

1 Meaning an LLB from the University of East Bumcrack (an institution discovered by Annabel Crabb).

2 Of course, these werebn't the actual words ... but you get the general idea.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Member Account Required
You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.