cases, anyone?
2006-09-29 11:47:54 · 5 answers · asked by handelinlaw 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yep, but sorry do not have the resources to provide the cases to support this...nevertheless, it is rather obvious, the very term says it all.
2006-09-29 11:51:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would probably depend on the relative importance or value of each. If the condition precedent is very minor, you might have a hard time getting the entire contract nullified through a court, but worth a try. If it is of prime importance to the operation, by all means it would be null and void.
Also depends on the attys parsing the exact wording of the contract. Rarely does it mean exactly what you thought, legalese is skilled in that way.
2006-09-29 11:51:36 · answer #2 · answered by finaldx 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but it would depend on how "material" the condition precedent is to the contract and the ultimate intent of the parties. If the condition precedent is not material then, as a general rule, you may still have an obligation to fulfill your side of the contract and you may actually find yourself in breach.
I cannot give you cases because I do not know what jurisdiction you are in. Contract law is generally state-specific.
2006-09-29 12:22:40 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Certainly should. That's pretty basic to the definition of a condition precedent. However, is it spelled out in black and white in the agreement?
2006-09-29 11:56:01 · answer #4 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most likely. Depends on the condition and the time for it to occur and whether, as noted, it was a material condition.
2006-09-29 17:42:15 · answer #5 · answered by Mos 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋