How can an agreement supersede another contemporaneous agreement? I came across this type of clause, and found that it's quite common. I understand the part that says an agreement supersedes any previous agreements, but the clause looks something like this: Supersedes Previous Agreements. This Agreement supersedes all prior or contemporaneous negotiations, commitments, agreements and writings with respect to the subject matter hereof, all such other negotiations, commitments, agreements and writings will have no further force or effect, and the parties to any such other negotiation, commitment, agreement or writing will have no further rights or obligations thereunder. Lawinsider.com I understand that a new agreement can supersede an older one. All that needs to be done in that case is to establish the time that any other ones were made, and by comparison you can know that one in particular is the latest one. But I don't understand how an agreement can supersede all over contemporaneous agreements. I understand "contemporaneous" to mean at the same time, am I wrong about that? Is it even possible for two separate agreements to be made exactly contemporaneously? Also what happens if other agreements have this clause (that it supersedes all other agreements)? If it is possible for multiple agreements to be made exactly contemporaneously (which I take to mean exactly at the same time, which I'm not sure is possible), doesn't this result in multiple agreements superseding each other?
Is it even possible for two separate agreements to be made exactly contemporaneously? The issue is not whether two separate agreements on the same matter(s) can be entered at exactly the same time. By contemporaneous agreement, a "Supersedes Previous" clause refers to any agreement which was in force at the time the new one is entered (or just prior to the new one being entered). what happens if other agreements have this clause (that it supersedes all other agreements)? doesn't this result in multiple agreements superseding each other? There is no general answer to that, as it highly depends on a wide range of circumstances. For instance, if two (or more) mutually superseding, contradictory agreements are drafted by the same party, the non-draftsman may invoke the doctrine of contra proferentem to determine which agreement is binding for the controversy at issue. When contra proferentem is inapplicable, ambiguities would be adjudged in a way that is most consistent with the intent of the parties as ascertainable from the rest of terms and conditions. The fact that two parties knowingly and willfully entered contradictory agreements can only complicate the task of identifying the legitimate intent of their contract(s). In a context where the legal relation is so fuzzy, things can backfire when the dispute is adjudged. Thus, it is not in the parties' best interest to deliberately commit to flawed clauses in the first place.
If a candidate chooses to sign by simply typing their name as shown (as an example) in the first and second photos, they'd obviously have to stick to the same name and font when signing the contract and non-disclosure agreement. This assertion is incorrect. But what repercussions would it have in future? If the candidate has to sign any more company documents much later (signing physically with a pen on paper or even signing electronically), would it have to match with the signatures that were first made in the offer letter? No. Or would commonsense be accepted, that the signature is basically the candidate's acceptance of the terms of the agreement, and that the signature can vary? Yes. A signature is ritualized way of showing legal agreement. The content of the signature does not impact its legal validity. For example, it used to be commonplace for illiterate people to sign contracts, wills, and other documents prepared by someone else and read to them with an &quot;X&quot;. So long as a signature is made by the person who is supposed to be signing it with an intent to legally agree to what they are signing, it is a valid signature. When a signature is obtained in a manner that does not reflect the intent of the person signing it to legally agree to what they are actually signing, that is a special category of fraud called &quot;fraud in the factum&quot;. For example, substituting a deed to a house from a receipt for a package delivery at the last moment when the person signing it doesn't notice the switch, is &quot;fraud in the factum&quot;. A court's conclusion that there has been &quot;fraud in the factum&quot; has the legal effect of causing the document signed to be treated as if it was never signed at all. In contrast, different legal consequences are present when someone signs a document, knowing what they are signing, for reasons that rely on false statements that have been made to them, which is called &quot;fraud in the inducement.&quot; If someone tries to enforce an agreement that purports to be signed, and the person who allegedly signed it claims that the signature was forged by a third-party, inconsistency between the signature and other times that the person who allegedly signed something did so is evidence that the signature is a forgery. But it is not conclusive evidence. People's signatures change over time for a variety of reasons, sometimes dramatically in a short period of time, for example, in the case of a stroke or a hand injury. When signatures differ over time and there are allegations of forgery, then it is a question of proof for a finder of fact (i.e. a judge or jury) to decide if the alleged forgery is really a forgery. Many businesses that routinely accept small dollar value personal checks, for example, also take a thumb-print of the person signing the check in order to make it cheap and easy to litigate the question of whether a signature on a check is forged, and to discourage litigants from falsely claiming that a check was forged in the first place. This practice was established because lying and claiming that a check was forged used to be a tactic that was used on a recurring basis in civil cases and in criminal bad check passing prosecutions to escape liability.
Laws update, collectively, very frequently. Laws are embodied in statutes, regulations, and court rulings, statutes being the most stable of the three. In terms of what an individual lawyer would do, the most important is to focus on the relevant and ignore the irrelevant. If you mostly write wills and trusts, that defines a subset of issues that are important to you; if you are a tax attorney, that is another subset. If you ask a contract attorney about some highly speculative matter of constitutional law, the answer will most likely be &quot;That's outside my area of specialization&quot;. The concepts of &quot;subscribe&quot; and &quot;free&quot; are mostly antithetical. If you want the really good stuff, you can subscribe to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis. If you want the really free stuff (as generally seen here), the simplest solution is to use Google which may direct you to Findlaw, Justia, Cornell, Avvo or Law SE (unabashed plug). New is not necessarily better, and frankly, new statutes are the least informative, because legislatures often say things that are less than clear on the face of it, and will need to await either administrative creation of a regulation that spells out what the law means, or a court ruling that does the same thing – maybe 10 years after the law was passed.
Yes. There are two different meanings of "to execute" in law. Also note that terms can vary in different jurisdictions. In the UK, most people wouldn't use 'to execute' when signing a Will - they'd just sign it. 1. To bring a written document into effect. Any mark made by the testator on the document validates the will, provided that they intended it to be their signature, and that this signature is meant to execute the will. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/100522 The Witness Requirement to Execute a Will A will typically must be properly witnessed to be valid. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/wills-trusts/witness-requirement-execute.html Amendments to a will can only be made while executing a will or after the date of execution of the will. Amendments to a will must comply with the same requirements for a valid will and if you cannot write, with the same requirements listed under that heading. http://www.justice.gov.za/master/m_deseased/deceased_wills.html The term "execute" is not restricted to Wills: When a person "executes" a document, he or she signs it with the proper "formalities". For example: If there is a legal requirement that the signature on the document be witnessed, the person executes the document by signing it in the presence of the required number of witnesses. https://www.apostille.us/faq/what-does-it-mean-to-quotexecutequot-a-documen.shtml Documents are most commonly executed as simple contracts. ... Deeds can also be advantageous even when they are not strictly required by law. For example, if only one party under a contract is receiving a real benefit from an agreement, it would be advisable under English law to execute the contract as a deed so that it is not void for lack of consideration. Another potential advantage of deeds is that they have a longer statutory limitation period than contracts: twelve years. However, a deed requires some additional execution formality beyond a simple signature. Deeds must be in writing and will typically be executed in the presence of a witness, although in the case of a company a deed may be executed effectively by two directors or a director and the company secretary. https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commercial_execution.html 2. To carry out the instructions in a Will of a deceased person (in the UK the corresponding role in relation to an intestate estate is an administrator). An executor (male) or executrix (female) is the person named in a will to perform these duties. An administrator (male) or administratrix (female) is the person appointed by the probate court to complete these tasks when there is no will or no executor or executrix has been named in the will. http://www.attorneys.com/wills-trusts-and-probate/executor-versus-administrator Executors and Administrators are responsible for administering the Estate of someone who has died. They are known collectively as Personal Representatives. The Executor’s authority is taken from the Will, and comes into effect immediately on the death of the person who made the Will. In theory, the Executor can exercise all their powers from the date of death. https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/the-difference-between-an-executor-and-an-administrator/
Typically the landlord will have a preexisting clause in the lease that says the landlord may choose to amend the lease at a later date. While that may be in contracts, I don't see that holding up in court. You can't unilaterally amend contracts to add new terms without acceptance on part of the lessee. Any clause in the contract like that will require notification of the lessee of the change and a chance for the lessee to terminate the contract without recourse on part of the lessor. Generally this must be done in the same format as the original lease (written). Most jurisdictions don't allow for a verbal amendment to a written lease. So in a way, yes, it is legal for a landlord to require payment via a certain method (like a direct debit from a bank account). They cannot however change the payment terms unilaterally without notification and acceptance. They can use language such as sending the notification (via registered mail) and then saying that a failure to respond is acceptance (because you are, by actions, accepting the terms by continuing to live there).
He has this phrased like it's the ability to decide which laws you follow, and that it's an ability being withheld from the general public (although I seriously doubt that at least the former is the case). This is yet another false claim made by "freemen" or those who claim "common law defences". Notice of Understanding has no legal meaning unless the context demands that it evidences a meeting of the minds for the purposes of contract formation. It is a well-settled principle of common law that in order to be bound by a contract, there must be an agreement. Put simply, I cannot bind someone simply by sending them a Notice unless it is a right conferred on me by some earlier statute or legislation, or legally binding agreement. I tried searching for a solid definition, but all I could find was people/organization's Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights. The reason you've found nothing official about the terms Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights is that there is nothing official or legal about those terms. They are ordinary terms with ordinary meaning being bastardised by deluded people who believe they can fine the government and refuse to be bound by the law of the land. Of course, none of this holds up. What is the purpose of declaring your Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights? It might make you feel better, even though it has no legal, practical or other effect.
Yes Yes Yes However, these are pretty standard contract terms. Many, many terms survive the end of the substantive agreement. For example, terms with respect to ongoing confidentiality, dispute resolution, warranties, termination itself etc. The second is so common it actually has a named legal doctrine: reading down. In the absence of such a clause, if the contract inadvertently exceeds what the law allows, it preserves the contract rather than leaving both parties without contractural protection.
Article 75 says that It devolves upon the Storting: (a) to enact and repeal laws; to impose taxes, dues, customs and other public charges, which shall not, however, remain operative beyond 31 December of the succeeding year, unless they are expressly renewed by a new Storting Article 97 says that "No law must be given retroactive effect" . The combined effect of these provisions is that any changes in the law effected this year could apply to tax years after 2020 but not including 2019. So the law as written supports your understanding. Skatteetatten seems to agree since the rules are listed as covering 2019.