Nor does it say it doesn’t.
Bibby Bargain Barge?
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Next time you sign a contract, try enforcing a right that doesn't exist.
A “right that doesn’t exist” is one that is explicitly excluded, not one that isn’t mentioned.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
nonsense.
it is nothing more than a good faith clause "the parties shall agree in good faith, blah blah blah". I've written hundreds over the years. It acknowledges an intention to do something at some point in the future and is nothing more than that.
it is nothing more than a good faith clause "the parties shall agree in good faith, blah blah blah". I've written hundreds over the years. It acknowledges an intention to do something at some point in the future and is nothing more than that.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
So if the contract doesn't exclude something, it can be enforced.
You know that though
Isn't that one of the key facets of diplomacy? Making things deliberately ambiguous and meaningless so both sides can claim a victory.
That particular clause leaves open the possibly of refugees being returned to UK without specifying who, what or why.
Motorbiking argues that Rwanda can't invoke it, which makes it a useless, pointless clause.
On that basis, it wouldn't have been included. A clause specifying who (only UK), what (a refugee) when (specifying that only UK can decide), or why (as and when UK so decides) would have been added to the clause, making it not a useless, pointless clause.
These weren't included, just the open clause of a refugee or refugees being returnd to UK.
As motorbiking says, Treaties are expected to be open and fair. If only one party can enact a clause, it would have been specified.
As either party can enact the clause, it is left open for either party to enact it.
A lack of candour and a large smattering of ambiguity, is a deliberate ploy by the Tories.
Useless twunts
@Roy Bloom
I think it is more akin to an agreement to make an agreement. Which I believe, would normally be unenforceable due to lack of certainty.
I think it is more akin to an agreement to make an agreement. Which I believe, would normally be unenforceable due to lack of certainty.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Exactly this.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Ignoring the fact that this is a treaty. No if it’s silent, it’s silent. Simples
Isn't it odd how lawyers put so much effort into writing contracts with loads of exclusions......when all they had to do was mention good faith.
So the "Treaty" isn't really a treaty, it's a Gentleman's agreement to have a Treaty? Then none of it is enforcable in law, because the bit you dislike is not specified to your liking and is rather vague?
Anymore lame excuses for how an agreement which specifies that something can be done, but does not specify how, when or why it can be done, means it can't be done?
It's amazing how the resident self-appointed legal expert says read the 'Treaty', but when the treaty is not worded to his liking, he says it's not really what it claims to be.
So if the law doesn't specifically say I can do something, it means I can't do it.
That's a nuisance because I was going to covert my old caravan into a boat trailer, but because the law doesn't cover that possibility, it means I can't.
I'd better tell everyone else that had a similar idea. I'd better tell the suppliers of trailer parts, as well, that their market has just been destroyed because the law does not specifically allow the construction of DIY trailers.
And as for self-build houses, I'll have to put that idea on the back-burner as well.
Last edited:
So it's not a "Treaty".
It is a treaty, with some silent clauses?
If they're silent, they're silent, and each party can interpret it as they want.
My house deeds determine the boundary, and it's silent about how the land can be enclosed on that boundary.
It does not mean that I can't enclose the land on that boundary, I can enclose it with a fence, a wall, or just leave it unenclosed.
There are local restrictions, which the Deeds do not refer to, because the local restrictions vary.
But in a Treaty. the local 'restrictions' cannot override the Treaty.