"Transactional Education: What's Next?" June 4 and 5, 2010 Emory University School of Law-Atlanta, Georgia • Charles Fox, Pace Law School/Fox Professional Development LLC • Jane Scott, St. John's University School of Law
FIDIC standards&norms should be followed by all big/mega national/international contracts by all nations/Co.s/ Engineers / Contractors / Govts for quality & safety
The American Bar Association website has an article which strongly disagrees with the viewpoint given in this video on the use of the phrase "represents and warrants". The article, titled 'The Phrase "Represents and Warrants" Is Pointless and Confusing', points to (1) the fact that warranties do not exist in every contract that representations do, (2) a lack of any case law supporting the idea that choice of verb between "represents", "warrants", or "represents and warrants" has an actual effect on remedies used, and (3) the legal strangeness that would ensue if semantic determination of whether something was a representation or warranty was equated with choice of verb rather than by relevant laws such as the uniform commercial code. I'm curious if anyone has a data-backed response to any of those arguments.