Agreement Comply With

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.

Look at the following tweets, one of me that takes into account the difference between compliance with the law and compliance with all laws, not to mention compliance with all applicable laws, and an unexpected response from Jason Morris, including @RoundTableLaw: we temporarily prevented your IP address from accessing Vocabulary.com because we found behavior contrary to our terms of use. If you think we blocked you by mistake, please email us at support@vocabulary.com and let us know. Be sure to indicate your current IP address that you can get by clicking here. . The action you want to perform, the required privileges that your account does not have. Try to log in as another user. 1-300, 301-600, 601-900, I do not understand how, if contracts contrary to the law are void that say nothing at all. If you want to make the violation of the treaty a violation of the treaty, why not say so? If the problem persists, please visit our help area and let us know about the problem. – Jason Morris (@RoundTableLaw) September 26, 2018: 82. Затраченное время: 137 мс .

Переводите текст из любого приложения или веб-сайта одним щелчком мыши.