It took me a while to figure out Jason`s point. You can read the thread yourself, but the problem is that it would be „surplus“ to impose an obligation on a party to comply with the law, since we are all already required to comply with the law. Jason suggests that you rather say in a contract that it is a breach of contract if a party violates the law when it executes under the contract. I have Jason`s point, but I`m not convinced. Yes, everyone has to comply with the law (let`s put in disbelief here), but if you don`t, respond to the state. I see no harm in creating a specific obligation for contractual purposes. And it may be a surplus, but it has the advantage of being more concise than Jason`s formulation. So I don`t think it`s worth teaching the old and predatory dogs this new trick. But I would like to hear what you think. Jason`s question led me to another, and perhaps more delicate, question: how do I know if someone has broken the law? Is it only the state that decides that, or is a contractor entitled to assess the facts and the law and come to its own conclusion? If the state decides the result of a violation? For example, if a contracting party enters into an approval order with a government authority, would it be an acknowledgement of a violation of the law? I have no research on that. I thought I was going to start by posing the problem there.
Переводите текст из любого приложения или веб-сайта одним щелчком мыши.