Contract mentions an outdated law I want to keep it short. I signed a contract on 01/12/2021 that mentioned in the Terms and Conditions that they adhere to the 531/2012 law. This law is now outdated, it says No longer in force, Date of end of validity: 30/06/2022; Repealed by 32022R0612 . Latest consolidated version: 15/06/2017 The new version / repealed version is the 2022/612 law. This new version is not mentioned in my contract, as my contract was signed before that law as created. Question I have a dispute with this contract, with respect to how the other entity did not respect the conditions. This dispute is from 20/07/2022, so during a time in which the old law is no longer in force. Which of the two laws is now the one that the contract has to adhere to?
When an EU regulation or directive is replaced, the successor law will generally clarify that references to the old law should be interpreted as references to the successor law. That is also the case here. The old law is Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 The successor law is Regulation (EU) 2022/612 The successor law contains the following article: Article 23: Repeal Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 is repealed. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II. That annex provides a mapping between articles in both laws. So, if your contract references Regulation 531/2012, you can interpret that as a reference to Regulation 2022/612. If your contract mentions specific articles of the old regulation, you can use Annex II to find the corresponding articles in the new regulation. This does not mean that the new regulation is necessarily applicable in your case. You mention that the dispute “is” from a time when the new law applied. However, the question is not when the dispute was raised, but when the alleged breaches occurred. If the matter were to be laid before a court, the court would apply the old law for breaches while the old law was in force, and the new law for those breaches while the new law was in force. This could lead to the same or distinct results. I haven't read the laws in question, so it could also be that these regulations apply to the formation of contracts and not conduct during those contracts, so that the old law might remain in effect until one contractual period is over (e.g. if you have a yearly contract that will renew on 2022-12-01, the old regulation might be applicable until then).
You have read it: legally It doesn’t matter if you haven’t read it in fact. At law, you have. Therefore you cannot avoid obligations or consequences by saying “ I didn’t read it”. It’s an extension of the common law principle that if you affix your ‘mark’ to a document you were acknowledging that you understood it and would abide by it: even if your mark was an X because you were illiterate. There are protections. At common law an unconscionable term is unenforceable and may void the contract entirely. Additionally, many jurisdictions have passed legislation to make unfair contract terms unenforceable, particularly in contracts of adhesion. Further, consumer protection laws often have non-excludable warranties that operate in spite of the contract.
Let me start by saying that real estate contracts are some of the most heavily regulated contracts and details vary enormously by jurisdiction. That said ... To vary a contract, the contract must actually contain provisions that allow for it to be varied and variations must be in accordance with those. These sorts of clauses are common in long-term contracts (building, mining, logistics etc) but are less common (but not unknown) in transactional contracts like real estate sales. If the contract does not contain such provisions then it can only be varied by a collateral contract which has the same basic requirements of any contract - in this particular case, were you offered something in return for agreeing to delay settlement? If you weren't you do not have a collateral contract that varies the original contract. Notwithstanding, even though the other party delaying settlement from the 11th to the 18th is a breach of the contract by them, by agreeing to it you would be prevented from enforcing your rights under the contract by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This presumes that they actually settle by the 18th - if they don't all bets are off and you can enforce the rights you have from their breach by failing to settle on or before the 11th - just don't agree to any more extensions. What you remedies are will be detailed in the contract. These would normally include issuing a notice for them to settle by a given date - if they don't do that you can terminate the contract and keep the deposit. You could also sue for damages. Don't do any of this (or anything else) without getting legal advice first. Edit The OP has put in a comment a rather vital piece of information: there is a clause making settlement contingent on the buyer selling their condo. If the delay is in accordance with that clause then the vendor is stuck, even if settlement takes 10 years.
The parties to the contract have not changed; they are still the purchaser company and the scrap vendor. The obligations have not changed; they are presumably based on amounts of stock and monetary value. The only changes are in the name of one party and its ownership, so unless the contract permits termination for those reasons (not unheard of, if a contract has been intended to provide/avert support from/by a particular party or symbolism) the contract still stands with all its terms. A novation is not needed.
Such a right would only exist if the legislature has created it by some act. Insurance is excluded under the class of covered contracts under The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (see schedule 2), and The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The only restriction on automatical renewal clauses under Consumer Rights Act 2015 is that the deadline for objecting to renewal cannot be unreasonably early (schedule 2, unfair terms); and in general, the terms may not be vague. Since there is no law restricting a contract from requiring written notice, or telephone notice, or whatever they demand, then it comes down to what the contract says. If it says &quot;you must call&quot;, then you must call.
A contract need not be written to be valid and enforceable. However, if there is no written contract, then in a dispute the burden of proving (via a preponderance of evidence) a contractual obligation falls on the party asserting it. In the scenario you describe it sounds like that would be impossible for the processing company.
A contract is binding if it has been agreed by both sides and is otherwise legal and freely entered into. A signature (handwritten or otherwise) is not required. However if a dispute arises, either party can use the presence of a signature as evidence that the contract was agreed to. The signature is evidence of the agreement, and the agreement is binding, not the signature. If your handwritten signature is on a contract that you have not agreed to you would need to explain to the court how this happened: &quot;I was forced to at gunpoint&quot; or &quot;It wasn't written by me but by a forger&quot;, for example. The court would then have to decide, on the balance of probabilities if they believe you or not. It is much the same with digital signatures. The court has to decide if you made an agreement or not. If your digital signature appears on an electronic document that you haven't agreed to, you would need to explain to the court how that happened: &quot;my key was stolen&quot; would be your explanation. If the revocation came after the contract was signed, you would have a much weaker case than if it came before. But the court would need to weigh the balance of probabilities. But the &quot;key&quot; point here (pun absolutely intended) is that it is the agreement that is binding, and not the signature. If you agree to a contract (and indicate that agreement by digital signature using a key that you later revoke) then you are bound. If you don't agree to a contract (which is signed without your consent using a key stolen from you that you have revoked) then you are not bound.
Is a firm required to arbitrate disputes arising after the expiration of employment contract? The wording of this question is problematic. From your description it is doubtful that the contract truly expired at the end of the first year. It is valid for a contract to encompass multiple phases with different provisions specific to each phase. Providing that &quot;[a]fter the first year the employee may continue working for the company, until terminated, as an at will employee&quot; is different from expiration of the contract at the end of the first year. The contract simply outlined what happens before and after that point in time. The employer's allegation that the contract expired at the end of the first year is inconsistent with outlining in that same contract the nature of the parties' continued relation after the first year. Said nature of the employment relation should have been outlined in a separate contract in order to preempt an interpretation of there being one same/ongoing contract. The employer's allegation is vague and untenable also in a scenario where the employer terminates the employee within the first year. The employer's allegation seemingly implies that the employee's deadline for arbitration proceedings expires at the end of the first year. That would give the employer the opportunity to evade the arbitration clause by choosing a timing that de facto prevents its employee from enforcing the clause. Questions regarding arbitration are unanswerable without knowing the exact terms of the relevant clause(s). Just like the contract provides a transition from fixed term employment to at will employment, it is possible --but not necessarily the case-- that the arbitration provision is applicable only to some of the phases that the contract encompasses.