There's a practice --I'd hesitate to call it a school of thought-- that views the contract as the product of a bargaining process, whose rightful place is inside a drawer, from it will emerge only if a conflict erupts.
I see things differently.
I take the position that a contract should be a guide. Like a travel guide, it should give the reader an idea of what to expect, the high points and areas of interest, and a reasonably current idea of costs and risks.
But we shouldn't ask drafters to assume oracular powers and to furnish answers on demand to problems unseen or unsuspected at the time of contracting.
One example among many: Who'd have thought, a year ago, that the price of a barrel of oil would approach $150 in 2008? And among those with the foresight to imagine such a contingency, who'd have expect, six months after reaching this all-time high, that the price of a barrel of oil would fall below $50?
What makes this example telling isn't only the absolute price level --$50, $150, something in between-- but especially the extent of variation in the course of a single year.
And what this example compelling is that in many settings --basically anything involving internal-combustion engines-- the impact resulting from such oscillation will swamp variations due to interest rate or foreign exchange variations.
As I see things, it's risky to make a bet on which factor prices are most likely to change, and it's riskier still to anticipate the magnitude or lasting effect of any variation.
Comments