Ah Mate Clause
A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law. Breach of contract is recognised by the law and remedies can be provided. An Ah mate clause is therefore contained within many modern day contracts. It effectively absolves the parties from having any responsibility do perform the necessary contractual agreement.
There are few formalities or writings in an Ah Mate clause. Moreover, there is absolutely no intention to enter into a contract or agreement; merely acting as a temporary arrangement or delay for another action or event.
Execution & Example
Unlike many legal terms, verbal instruction is obligatory. A party who rescinds from an agreement ‘like a tosssser’, providing it is accompanied by a short breath and a convincing “aaaaahhh mate” is effectively safe from any further legal action. Critics have highlighted the objectivity of this, however the famous case of Newey v Surrey Council 2004 which brought about the Ah Mate Act has provided convincing evidence in an assortment of strange actions, containing many subclauses with quite unclear and unbelievable but legitimate excuses to not be bound by the terms.
A typical example of an Ah Mate clause in a contract might occur typically as follows: one party (the Ah mater) decide they no not wish to pay for the goods they received and have absolutely no intention on sending them back to the other side (the Ah Matee). A quick port of contact, usually verbal, and ideally over the phone to disguise awkward body language will prevail. On picking up the phone, the Ah Mater would deny receiving the shipment and simultaneously draw a long breath and come out with the ‘aaaah mate’ followed by an unbelievable excuse which, if it makes the other party laugh, will immediately cancel and break the contractual ties. No laughter is not a problem, it just requires a little more legal action and associated costs. An example of delivery notification or even face-to-face exchange of goods is simply not enough in this instance.
Many legal minds consider this clause unfair and fearsome since many parties choose to not engage in a contract which otherwise would have been bound by the usual terms.
too shitty for Wikipedia,
but Phyllogicopedia barely accepts it.