回複：Ambiguous wording in contract

個人會建議您讀一下這個資料,雖然從老貓的觀點,您的問題可能沒有什麼可以爭議的,因為一般的情況在一般的法律文件中中這是代表每月兩次,您個人的理解並不能代表對方有問題,特別是如果這是一個定型化的契約,(也就是說相同的條款用在所有承租人的承租合約中)您可能就更沒有話說,(當然如果您曾經詢問過對方,同時對方給予您的回答有特別誤導的情況,您就有一個相當好的案件)然而老貓仍然希望這個資料或許會對您有所幫助.


特別是這一段話,

"If the wording of a contract is unclear, the parties can argue over what was really meant and/or have a court make a decision as to the meaning of what was written."

個人希望您如果最終決定以進入司法訴訟來解決這個問題,您能夠取得另您滿意的結果. (如果有機會,請告知最終處理的結果,老貓很有興趣知道,謝謝)

CONTRACT LAW

The words send shivers down the spine of any first year law student. Contract law is an area of the law that even law students and lawyers have problems with. Law students have problems because they are learning to think like a lawyer and are confused easily (that is a poke at our articling student and not necessarily true). Lawyers have problems with contract law because clients bring in contracts that are incomplete or ambiguous or that are very clear but the client doesn’t like what it says.

If the wording of a contract is unclear, the parties can argue over what was really meant and/or have a court make a decision as to the meaning of what was written. The court will determine what in the courts view was a reasonable meaning given all the evidence before the court and the parties will have a contract on the terms the court has determined. If the court can’t make a decision as to what was meant, the particular clause in question may be struck or simply removed from the contract for being too ambiguous. With the clause taken out, the contract may have no meaning and therefore the contract would be void. If the contract still makes sense the contract would continue to be valid.

In the event the clause is removed and the contract is still valid, but the clause removed was, or could be proved by one party to be fundamental to that party, then that party may have the right to void the contract or back out without being sued.

Most often the clause is not fundamental to the contract and therefore the meaning or lack of meaning will not make the contract invalid. The parties will then have to complete the contract. If they feel that they did not get everything they should have, they might pursue the other side for the portion or money damages to put them back where they would have been if they had received everything they expected.

Usually both parties think they know what a contract means until they take it to the lawyers and the lawyers start asking what it means. Most often the parties dealing through their lawyers can come to some agreement as to what is a reasonable interpretation of what was written.

Often contracts are written and signed with a view to letting the lawyers fix any problems later. This is a very dangerous practice. Once a contract is written and signed, the lawyer can only make changes if the other party is agreeable. Lawyers are expected to work miracles and renegotiate the terms and amend the contract.

When entering into a contract it would be best to have your lawyer look it over and discuss it before signing. Obviously this is not always possible. It is wise however to read it over and try to think of the terms from the perspective of the other side and always add details to make things more clear. In adding details it will become apparent to the other side if you are not thinking the same as them. This will help avoid unclear terms and most importantly make your lawyers life easier (which saves you money).

By Glen Cunningham
April 27, 2005

所有跟帖： 

• Thansk! The background is a long story -zclearwater- ♀ (938 bytes) () 11/22/2009 postreply 11:25:17