Skeleton Arguments are documents filed with the Court and exchanged between the parties in advance of a court hearing.
They summarise what you will say to the judge at the hearing.
It’s a broad outline of what you’re going to say to the judge at a hearing.
It’s not meant to contain everything that you might say to the judge. If you make it too long, the judge might not read it at all.
But there’s more to it. Much more.
Canons of construction were one of the centrepieces to the way courts interpreted contracts.
Now it’s different.
Of late, many of them have been downgraded in importance. But there are some that you just can’t live without, if you’ve got anything to do with reading and interpreting contracts.
Get to know them, and your understanding of the legal effect of your own contracts should move to the next level. Know what you are looking for. Read it more like a lawyer would.
The overall aim of interpreting contracts is to determine what the parties meant by it when it was signed.
Being able to read a contract means you’re in a better position, before you sign the contract, to:
As you will see below, business people are probably the best people to interpret their own contracts. Make more informed decisions as a result.
You can see where the problems might lie and focus your efforts when negotiating it.
When you have to make a witness statement for court, you can avoid the slip ups.
Slip ups make your life harder. They force you to take steps to defend what you say.
That might be avoidable.
Get it right the first time has other advantages.
Avoiding rookie mistakes gets you into a position to focus on advancing your own case. Structure your witness statements properly and cover what needs to be covered.
So the maxim goes, “He who comes to equity must approach the court with clean hands”.
What does this mean?
It looks clear and unqualified in its intention.
However, the maxim does not apply as broadly as it says. It’s not a rule of law. It’s a statement of public policy enforced by courts.
It’s commonly understood that the maxim means that a claimant should be deprived of all court-based remedies, because of some dishonesty, misrepresentation, illegality or unfairness.
That’s not correct.
The principle does not always exclude all remedies. It doesn’t apply as widely as you might first think.
Over time you tend to notice trends when things go wrong with business contracts.
All sorts of things can go wrong. Wrong wording, mix-ups in the effect of clauses, missing clauses, and unguarded interests.
Usually when you’re under pressure and in too much of a hurry. You get to the point where you need to decide whether it’s worth the risk.
We’ve noticed that the problems are more fatal more often than others. They’re often the biggest cause of the biggest problems. Often insurmountable.