"Force Majeure" Clauses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coder

Guest
The name of God is commonly used in legal documents when referring to events such as a storm. For example, many Terms or Service or similar agreements of web hosters and domain name providers use the name of God in this way. I think such clauses should use terminology such as “events beyond our control”.

God is the author of all nature so I don’t see how it is acceptable to refer to God as though He causes major natural events in particular. Also I think to use the name of God in such a way in a legal document is disordered since God is above human activity. How are we to think about signing such documents? Can we agree to/sign such documents without at the same time saying that we accept this way of referring to God?
 
Why go mucking around with the legal codes when we all know what “act of God” means. Besides “beyond our control” could mean something a whole lot less than an act of God.
 
Coder said:
The name of God is commonly used in legal documents when referring to events such as a storm. For example, many Terms or Service or similar agreements of web hosters and domain name providers use the name of God in this way. I think such clauses should use terminology such as “events beyond our control”.

God is the author of all nature so I don’t see how it is acceptable to refer to God as though He causes major natural events in particular. Also I think to use the name of God in such a way in a legal document is disordered since God is above human activity. How are we to think about signing such documents? Can we agree to/sign such documents without at the same time saying that we accept this way of referring to God?
Click to expand...
Much ado about nothing!
 
A U.S. governer sought that such use of God’s name be removed from a document before he would sign it.
 
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1art2.htm

In the Catechism 2143 we are told that God’s holy name is only to be used to praise, honor, and glorify it.

In 2148 we are told that blasphemy consists (among other things) in speaking ill of God and that blasphemy is in itself a grave sin.

To refer to natural events in legal documents such as storms as “acts of God” focuses on these events as if particular acts of God rather than part of His creation. It seems clear that referring to such events as acts of God does not glorify and honor His name and does speak ill of or at least lacks respect for Him. Therefore it seems that this is a form of blasphemy.

I don’t see how it can be acceptable to click/sign legal documents that use the name of God in such a way. I don’t see any reasoning that could allow us to compromise in respect for God’s holy name.
 
Then what should they be called?
Who or what, if not God, causes them, even indirectly?

Would you prefer act of nature?

Seems to me if you change it, you’re taking away from God’s awesome power, or at least trying to.

What’s wrong with calling it what it is?
I’d say it’s acknowledging that He has such mighty power,
and we are helpless before it. How is that not praise?
 
Coder said:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1art2.htm

In the Catechism 2143 we are told that God’s holy name is only to be used to praise, honor, and glorify it.

In 2148 we are told that blasphemy consists (among other things) in speaking ill of God and that blasphemy is in itself a grave sin.

To refer to natural events in legal documents such as storms as “acts of God” focuses on these events as if particular acts of God rather than part of His creation. It seems clear that referring to such events as acts of God does not glorify and honor His name and does speak ill of or at least lacks respect for Him. Therefore it seems that this is a form of blasphemy.

I don’t see how it can be acceptable to click/sign legal documents that use the name of God in such a way. I don’t see any reasoning that could allow us to compromise in respect for God’s holy name.
Click to expand...
Force Majeure clauses in legal documents do not blaspheme or speak ill of God. That is just a totally ridiculous thing to say!!
 
OK, let’s change it to “Acts of nature, which are beyond our control, which are not necessarily directed by God, the Creator, in a negative way toward mankind, rather that these are acts of his creation that we, as lowly man, do not understand as other than acts contrary to our own limited understanding of God’s will and therefor see as negative, although it is inherently against the will of the Almighty to associate his holy name in a negative fashion or manner.”

😃
 
Acts of Nature would not cover all the happenings that are typically referred to as “acts of God.” Some acts of nature are, well pretty natural and we still can insure against them. Acts of God are usually things which are totally unexpected or predictable. Things that the underwriters cannot handle statistically. Maybe like an earthquake on the New Madrid fault that changes the course of the Mississippi to the extent that it inundates your home in central Indiana.
 
TC2 said:
What’s wrong with calling it what it is?
I’d say it’s acknowledging that He has such mighty power,
and we are helpless before it. How is that not praise?
Click to expand...
Hi, perhaps this wording could be interpreted to acknowledge that we are subject to God. However, I think it is disprespectful to single out only events on the earth that are seen as negative in such a way. The context seems to refer to God from the perspective that His “acts” may interfere with our business or service. This seems to refer to God in an adversarial way (even if not intentional). This is why I see it as blasphemous.
 
Coder said:
Hi, perhaps this wording could be interpreted to acknowledge that we are subject to God. However, I think it is disprespectful to single out only events on the earth that are seen as negative in such a way. The context seems to refer to God from the perspective that His “acts” may interfere with our business or service. This seems to refer to God in an adversarial way (even if not intentional). This is why I see it as blasphemous.
Click to expand...
You are totally wrong about it being blasphemous!
 
Newbie2 said:
OK, let’s change it to “Acts of nature, which are beyond our control, which are not necessarily directed by God, the Creator, in a negative way toward mankind, rather that these are acts of his creation that we, as lowly man, do not understand as other than acts contrary to our own limited understanding of God’s will and therefor see as negative, although it is inherently against the will of the Almighty to associate his holy name in a negative fashion or manner.”

😃
Click to expand...
PLEASE NO!!! I am a Contract Administrator. Believe me i have to write all over contracts and the more infomation you write the angrier people get. PLEASE let me keep this phrase since it is short and sweet and everyone knows what it means. 🙂
 
Newbie2 said:
OK, let’s change it to “Acts of nature, which are beyond our control, which are not necessarily directed by God, the Creator, in a negative way toward mankind, rather that these are acts of his creation that we, as lowly man, do not understand as other than acts contrary to our own limited understanding of God’s will and therefor see as negative, although it is inherently against the will of the Almighty to associate his holy name in a negative fashion or manner.”

😃
Click to expand...
PLEASE NO!!! I am a Contract Administrator. Believe me i have to write all over contracts and the more infomation you write the angrier people get. PLEASE let me keep this phrase since it is short and sweet and everyone knows what it means. 🙂
 
TC2 said:
How would you like to see it worded?
Click to expand...
Consider a web hosting service. Perhaps it could read: “We work to provide steady service, however you agree not to pursue claims against us for down time.” If they have a 99.5% up-time history they can simply mention that as an indication of their professional standards.

Christians know that the only real guarantee we have is based on our faith in God through Jesus. But those who do not understand that can still accept that there is a mystery to human life and that we do not have control and power over events in the universe. I think our legal system should simply include this understanding as a foundational premise.
 
beckers said:
PLEASE NO!!! I am a Contract Administrator. Believe me i have to write all over contracts and the more infomation you write the angrier people get. PLEASE let me keep this phrase since it is short and sweet and everyone knows what it means. 🙂
Click to expand...
Waddya mean? That WAS the abbreviated version! :rotfl:
 
I’m surprised the atheists haven’t gotten that removed from the legal codes yet. I don’t see how attributing the powers of nature to God is anything negative.
Coder said:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1art2.htm

In the Catechism 2143 we are told that God’s holy name is only to be used to praise, honor, and glorify it.

In 2148 we are told that blasphemy consists (among other things) in speaking ill of God and that blasphemy is in itself a grave sin.

To refer to natural events in legal documents such as storms as “acts of God” focuses on these events as if particular acts of God rather than part of His creation. It seems clear that referring to such events as acts of God does not glorify and honor His name and does speak ill of or at least lacks respect for Him. Therefore it seems that this is a form of blasphemy.

I don’t see how it can be acceptable to click/sign legal documents that use the name of God in such a way. I don’t see any reasoning that could allow us to compromise in respect for God’s holy name.
Click to expand...
 
A few points.

First, there isn’t really a code to change. Unless you are contracting with the government, a contract is something between two private parties, so the reference or invocation of God in a contract doesn’t really pose any constitutional issues.

Stock phrases in contracts like that written a certain way over and over because that’s the way they were written in the past. If courts have interpreted specifc words in the past, the parties have more certainty about how a court would interpret them in the future. If you change the specific words or phrase, then you have less certaintity that a court will think that mean what you mean.

When the legal community drafts contracts with that language the intent is not ordinarily to either blashphem or praise. The goal is to try to make what the parties want the bargain to be, to be valid. I must say this is the first time this issue has ever occured to me.

In most cases, particulary in a consumer context, the contract is a take it or leave proposition. Assuming that is the case and you need the item for your family, I don’t see how agreeing to the terms could be a sin, any more than paying your taxes when you know that a small fraction of those taxes will support abortion for example.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I’m surprised the atheists haven’t gotten that removed from the legal codes yet. I don’t see how attributing the powers of nature to God is anything negative.
Click to expand...
Why would an atheist care if a contract stipulates the [hypothetical and unlikely] intervention of a being he or she doesn’t believe in isn’t covered? If an act of God doesn’t occur, there’s nothing to discuss; if one does occur and is unmistakably divine in origin, the atheist isn’t an atheist any more since there’s incontrovertible proof of a deity’s existence.

An ‘acts of God’ clause is kinda like an ‘acts of giant pink elephants on motorcycles’ clause that way.
 
Sorry if you feel “short changed” Coder. I answered as best I knew how. At base I totally disagree that using “act of God” is in any way disrespectful of God. Further, our legal system has been established long ago and this phrase is fairly well understood. Our ancestors most of whom were Christians apparently had no difficulty with it and neither do I. The name God is apparently not held to be unspeakable or spelled G-D by anyone except observant Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top