>> At least then if it comes to court you can have
>> >> an argument about what is reasonable.
>> >>
>>
>> Many are the lawyers who have made a reasonably good living arguing in court as
>> to what is or is not ' reasonable'
Indeed. In practice I think more arguments are settled on the steps of the palais de justice for that reason. I've had a handful of 'disputes' in my job, and none has actually ended up in court even though proceedings were initiated.
The most interesting one went to mediation (not arbitration), by a QC agreed to by both parties after several had been proposed. It wasn't settled on the day, but the QC carried on chipping away afterwards (he didn't want a failed mediation on his score sheet) and it was settled a few weeks later. Had it gone to court it would have been a £10m toss up, plus costs. There wasn't actually a 'reasonable' obligation in that one, there were some precise definitions - it came down to whether they could "reasonably' be applied in certain circumstances that had not been contemplated when the contract was signed. We thought it was reasonable to do so, they didn't. It think it probably would have gone our way as it would have been in strict accordance with the contract IMO, but we were in no doubt that it would have been ground out at great expense.
|