Can a contract &quot;Implied in Fact&quot; supersede a written contract? A written contract states a given requirement for a service to be provided. But, in practice we ignore that requirement consistently and provide the service anyway. This goes on for many iterations, until at some point it doesn't. If our contract states we &quot;require&quot; XYZ in order to fulfill our service obligation but 95% of the time we fulfill it anyway, can someone potentially sue us for a violation of a contract in fact? Or, does contract in fact apply more in the situation where there is no written contract?
Yes, a contract implied in fact can supersede a written contract: if it both (1) arises after the parties have entered into their initial agreement and (2) if the subject matter of the agreement is not subject to the statutes of frauds (i.e. to a statutory requirement that agreements of this kind must always be in writing). A course of dealings before a written contract is signed if the contract states that it is the entire agreement of the parties, or appears from context to be the entire agreement of the parties, may not be considered pursuant to something known as the parole evidence rule (which is actually a rule of substantive law and not evidence, despite the name). An agreement that is required by statute to be modified in writing, something called a statute of frauds, might or might not be susceptible to being modified in this way. Sometimes, failure to comply with a statute of frauds is excused if the parties have partially performed the unwritten agreement, sometimes the statute is applied more strictly and cannot be overcome. Indeed, in Colorado, where I practice law most of the time, there is actually case law that specifically provides that even if a written contract states that it may only be modified in writing, that any oral or implied in fact agreement which could form a contract in the first place may supersede the written agreement. Proving that the course of dealings actually constituted an actual modification of the contractual obligation, may, in practice, be a challenging matter, however. In practice, there is probably a stronger argument on the available facts in the question, that there has been a waiver of the requirement for further provision of the service that may not be undone retroactively, but may be reasserted prospectively with fair notice to the other party, with the written contract remaining in force. The judge or jury would have to listen to the facts from the parties about their course of dealings and communications, about the nature of the &quot;requirement&quot;, and about the pertinent terms of the written contract, and more generally, the larger context of the transaction, and then would decide which interpretation seemed closer to the truth, or if another explanation of what happened was more plausible. This dilemma and uncertainty is generically a problem any time that the parties course of dealings deviates significantly from a written instrument. These kinds of cases are never clear slam dunks for either party in the event of litigation.
It means that you state the fact and represent that it is true If you make a material false representation in the formation of a contract and the other party enters the contract in reliance on that, then that contract is void. This would appear to be the case here. When a contract is void neither party can enforce their rights, nor are they required to perform their obligations under that contract. The practical effect for a cryptocurrency broker is they have your money and your crypto coin and you can’t sue to get either back.
The entire purpose of the Entire Agreement clause is to say that this contract is the agreement, and anything previously negotiated is not part of the agreement. I don't know why they would fail to include that in the contract.
This is not a "if you breach the contract we may sue you" clause. This is a clause which says "if we find you trying to breach the contract, we can ask a court to stop you from doing so (even though you may not have actually breached the contract at that point in time)". The provision entitles the aggrieved party to specific relief - in this case, by the way of an injunction. Specific relief means relief of certain determined nature or of a specific kind, rather than a general relief or damages or compensation. Essentially, the clause that provides that if the receiving party of the confidential information threatens to disclose such information, the disclosing party shall be entitled to ask the court to specifically order the receiving party not to disclose the confidential information (as opposed to post-facto asking for damages for the harm caused by reason of such disclosure). In the absence of this provision, a court may rule that the disclosing party has no locus to take pre-emptive legal action, as no damage has been caused yet by the other party.
But even then, to my understanding, a contract can't prohibit a party from seeking legal remedies. You are mistaken. A contract settling a bona fide dispute regarding people's legal rights can mutually (or unilaterally for that matter) release or waive their legal rights. In fact, a waiver or release of rights is routinely a part of a settlement agreement. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of such agreements are entered into every year and they are almost always enforced. Sometimes, but not always, a settlement agreement will also call for a dismissal of a case with prejudice, which (roughly) means a dismissal that prohibits refiling a case involving the same subject matter.
am I obligated to pay this fee? Yes. You entered the lease despite been aware of the existence of that fee. That meets the contract law tenet that an agreement be entered knowingly and willfully. Does it not invoke an issue where they can arbitrarily set the price? If the landlord requires a fee that is unreasonably high, that would violate the contract law covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As such, that part would be unenforceable, meaning that the landlord may only charge a reasonable fee. Likewise, unless the lease clearly entitles the landlord to decide the telecom fee arbitrarily, the lease would fail to meet that extent of the aforementioned tenet of a contract being entered knowingly. Does this fall under the category of lease addendum? The form (or format) in which the requirement of telecom fee was mentioned --and agreed upon-- does not matter. The landlord only would need to prove that the tenant was --or should have been-- aware of that fee. Usually the landlord can prove that by showing/producing in court the lease with tenant's signature.
In the case of a smart contract ... it it actually valid? The question is based on the misconception that the terms &quot;smart contract&quot; (technical term) and &quot;contract&quot; (legal term) directly relate or have much in common. They don't. If anything, smart contracts are essentially modern replacement for papers and signatures. But paper contracts have never been contracts themselves either. They are merely evidence of the contracts, and this evidence is often not even necessary for the contracts to be valid: most contracts are not even required to be in writing. So, the story in your example is just the 21st century's analogue of good old paper contract foul play like signature forgery, disappearing ink and so on. Legally it is handled with no difference: investigate what happened, find out who intended what and judge what has to be done. Gavel bangs!
What does the contract say? If it says that they have the right to unilaterally alter the terms by providing you with notice by email, then they have the right to unilaterally alter the terms by providing you with notice by email. These types of service contracts typically have such terms.