The Agreement Shall Be Binding On

The binding effect or the successors and addressees of the assignment stipulates that the agreement benefits and binds the parties as well as their successors and recipients of the assignment. The purpose of the clause is to oblige the non-assigning party to fulfil its obligations in favour of the assignee and, conversely, to oblige the assignee to pay to the non-assigning party. By the way, (and this is a point that even some lawyers do not seem to understand), if the contract contains a keyword of the provision, which is simply ambiguous, the judge will still allow the parties to testify about what that term should mean. That`s because the purpose of the law is to enforce the treaty, but if you just can`t say what that damn thing means by reading the contract, you have to get testimonies from the parties about what they were trying to say. And of course, they may have completely different stories about what they intended to do, and it`s up to the judge or jury to decide who is more credible. And this, whether or not there is an agreement/integration clause in the treaty. A typical (brief) succession and assignment clause says: “This agreement must benefit and bind the successors and beneficiaries of the parties.” Normally, I think it`s too tight, even for “light” chords. More thought needs to be given to that. The purpose of this clause is to rule out what happens when the parties later argue about whether a significant part of the business is not included in the written contract. Specifically, it is the entire integration agreement/clause that comes into play (if the contract has one), when the parties argue in court over the terms of the transaction (or argue before a dispute over who they think will win if there is a remedy). In these disputes, one party is usually happier with what the treaty literally says while the other is not so happy – either because they did not read and negotiate the draft contract carefully before it was signed, or because they never imagined the circumstances that now lead to the dispute. .

. .