Let’s start with the moral of this tale before we get into the story itself: there’s only so much that contractual provisions can do.
India’s Supreme Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India […]
We almost didn’t write this – I’m still divided on whether to write a piece on a judgment that in my opinion is based on such a singular weave of facts and circumstances that it cannot possibly be relevant to the average company or shareholder; if you’ve noticed, all our musings on this platform always coalesce into pointers on what to do (and more importantly, what not to do) on the basis of our otherwise academic and theoretical endeavours. Light reading of the three hundred page judgment apart (with all the excitement that comes along with indulging such prose […/s]), I wondered whether a Bridge Legal post on the conclusion of the Tata-Mistry saga would make any sense, or even have a point.
Lawyers. Latin. Legalese. The world seems to be veering away from jargon in contract drafting and general parlance, but we would like to make a humble exception in today’s Bridge Legal piece (a shoutout to one of our followers for requesting this analysis is in order). Ipso Facto – a phrase that simply means, ‘by that very fact’, finds itself to be the focus of India’s Supreme Court in yet another interesting decision that has wide implications for contracts countrywide.
Software Licensing impacts you.
Whether you are reading this on your phone, tablet or computer, you are reading this because you have a license (we hope) to use the software facilitating you to do so – and you would be surprised by the number of licenses you have agreed to already.