Now here\’s a serious worry

Contracts are pretty much inviolable here in our Common Law system.

And I\’m even more worried than Nick Drew about this.

Because contracts are inviolable peepsw are asking, and some have got, that tax regimes etc should be contractual, not just legislative. For future governments can always change the law but those contracts will still stand.

Which sounds like a good idea: but here\’s the worry. The incentives and pressures for politicians to change the law are well known. But those same incentives are likley to have them making the contracts that previous governments have entered into violable.

And that\’s a whole shitload more of a problem, that undermining of why English commercial law actually works as well as it does.

In essence, I\’m suggesting that the incentives politicians have to lie, cheat and steal would be such that they would break the law of contract if they were held to it. So don\’t hold them to it, for that law of contract is too important to be broken by the flapheads and gumjabberers.

4 comments on “Now here\’s a serious worry

  1. Contract is always beneath the law. If Party A enters into some contract in 2009 then Party B wins in 2011 and doesn’t like the terms, it can still change the law, and there is sod all anyone can do about it – except to beware of dealing with the government in future.

  2. But laws are not retrospective.

    So so long as the contract doesn’t allow law changes to be reflected in the contract then everything can stay as is. The most that could happen would be for the contract to be cancelled (usual penalties etc) and a new one started taking into acccount the new law.

  3. Contracts are always subject to the law, including changes to the law.

    Party A contracts to deliver 10 kilos of methepepeferedipeferifidrine to party B on 1 January next year. On 31 December, the government bans methewhatever. Party B cannot now enforce their rights under the contract.

  4. Energy/oil/renewables etc. spend millions lobbying to get subsidies. They then rely on the promised subsidy flow to finance their scam. Of course they want a contract with penalties to protect their fat living. No one who relies on the public teat should be allowed to forget that lobbying may turn heads for a while but, the light may dawn in the future, and their scam seen for what it is. No contracts, let them twist in the wind, like their mills. Private companies that put up schemes that only work if the public are made to pay by way of subsidy should rethink their financial models as their scams make us poorer not richer.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.