The measure of a machine is function to purpose in all contingencies. Machines are tested in a controlled environment of use. A full test would be actual use for all functions, and determination that the machine poses no danger outside its functions. To fully test a screw, it must be set into each material for which it is intended. If it is known that some materials receive screws in the same way, only one such actual test is required. Many test screws may be needed because of wear from tests that exceed the purposed function. And so on.
A contract is a machine built of language. It differs from computer programming in only a few ways (the language used is often very old - though sometimes cutting edge, see derivatives - it is, so far, human read rather than machine read, it is governed by human forces such as civil institutions and markets rather than by electrical and other physical forces).
A contract may be tested only by thinking about it - and of course, nothing can be done with a contract except through its being thought about by individuals with power or by agents of power.
A transactional lawyer must possess a mind adept at testing contracts by thinking through their functions. There is a mental laboratory in which deals are shaped and tested into machines. The best transactional lawyers (as lawyers) are the best laboratory machinists.
(I say "as lawyers" because transactional lawyers are also adjunct deal makers, which a different skill - the skill of bringing resources into the laboratory and shop and knowing what impression - as well as what function - the process and the final machine should make.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment