Dear god almighty, you’ve got to read this

Possibly the most stupid contract ever written.

8 thoughts on “Dear god almighty, you’ve got to read this”

  1. It’s not quite as stupid as it seems, because there’s no way the chap can actually exercise his rights. He can settle, or he’ll get nothing.

    The latter will involve Aviva going bankrupt and/or the plaintiff’s litigation funders getting rich, but there’s no way Aviva’s giving up (absent a settlement) short of spending all their money on legal fees. The only way he can match their spending is to get litigation funding, but if he does that he won’t see any of the eventual proceeds even if he wins, given that a win would bankrupt the company and wouldn’t happen before they’ve already spent all their money, and that then the funders will get their money first.

    So, he’ll have to settle at some point. I’m just astonished that Aviva settled with anyone else in his family, given that they’ve allowed him to lock-in significant familial wealth such that he can now take chances with his own contract.

  2. This doesn’t surprise me. The French don’t get contracts in the same way the Anglos do, I worked on a multi-billion dollar project for a French company and discovered the contract was a cut-and-paste job written in very ambiguous English legalise, without a single native-English speaker involved in its creation. When I got on the job, I discovered nobody had printed any copies out, and none of the management seemed to know its content. Not that this stopped them constantly referring to “what the contract says” mind, it’s just that they were inevitably wrong. Unsurprisingly, they were staring down the barrel of $400m in change orders after less than a year.

  3. Very stupid. But maybe not more stupid than what teh Equitable got up to.

    I’m no expert in French life. However, AFAIK you’re in a fund. Providing that fund is solvent you can transfer to another fund. The fund is on the hook, not the company. The only difference is that nowadays you’re not given a rear view mirror to help your investing.

    So maybe the LAST fund George invested in is insolvent and must be wound up. But what was the last fund, given that the busy Bee Life appears not to have been executing his instructions?

  4. Dead Head Ed says: “Under a Labour Government, all our citizens will be entitled to such a contract; for the many not the few.”

  5. Correct me if I err,but in English contract law there has to be “consideration”, ie something of benefit to both parties. There is clearly no benefit to the life insurer in this particular case, and the policyholder is certainly acting in bad faith. The courts should put an end to this as it has gone wrong and the policyholder is now extorting the insurer. Perhaps a just judge would rule that the insurer can change the 7 day review period to something in line with modern ways (perhaps 1 second) and the clearly intended purpose of the original contract.

  6. johnny bonk, “no benefit to the life insurer,” you mean apart from the premium the client has to pay? These are ancillary terms to the central life insurance contract.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *