What does undertake means in the following context? Dos it means to start? In the terms and condition of a building company is written: Company is responsible for planning consent. All other consents reasonably required by the Company to undertake the contract shall be the responsibility of the customer. If the Customer fails to obtain any such consents and the company suffers loss as a result, including any loss of profit, the customer shall be liable to the Company for such losses.’ Can company start the work without party wall consent, because the customer has been responsible but did not obtain it?
What does undertake means in the following context? A priori it means to perform [the contract], to do the construction work. There is no indication in that paragraph that all consents are required prior to starting the work. Can company start the work without party wall consent, because the customer has been responsible but did not obtain it? This depends on the technicalities of the construction profession as well as the project schedule. To a person with no construction background and no context of the project it is unclear whether the building company even needs to start with/nearby that wall. If consent is unavailable by the time the company reasonably needs it (for instance, because thereby it was &quot;compelled&quot; to reschedule or because an inspector fined the company for not providing proof of consent), the clause entitles the company to recover from you that loss.
canada The language is clear in context Covenants and easements are interpreted using ordinary contractual interpretation: Connick v. Owners, Strata Plan VIS7092, 2022 BCCA 52. This means that interpretation should give the words &quot;their ordinary and grammatical meaning, consistent with the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of formation of the contract... The meaning of words is often derived from a number of contextual factors&quot;: Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53. A court would have no difficulty determining who &quot;King Charles III, King of England&quot; refers to.
It is done to prevent or at least provide a defence against a latter argument based on Estoppel; which at the risk of trivialising something that is very complex means that if you indicate to someone that you will or won't do something and they act on that indication then they may have a claim if you don't do what you indicated. When lawyers say this they are usually outlining a client's possible future actions so estoppel is in play. If they include this they are specifically saying "... But we might not do that."
No, it is not legal. Regardless of their location, the only legal options for companies serving to EU residents are to either deny access altogether or to make consent truly optional1 Recital 42 states (emphasis mine): Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement[...] Recital 43 states: Consent is presumed not to be freely given [...] or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance. 1 Of course, remember that consent is only one of several means that allow them to process data. For example, if you were getting a trial account for a limited time, it would be considered a legitimate business need to ensure that you are not just opening new trial accounts when the old ones expire. So, if they wanted some data from you to ensure that you are not a previous user and you refused to provide it, then they could deny giving you that trial account without breaking the GDPR.
Let's say I buy a phone. Typically you can buy a phone with something that is advertised as "no contract" or for example "with a 24 month contract". In reality, "no contract" means "we have a contract where you hand over the cash, and the phone company hands over the phone, and there are various guarantees that are either implied or explicit, but there are no terms in the contract that force you to hand over money to the phone company beyond payment for the phone in the future if you don't want to". So there is a contract, but the contract is such that you as the customer have no obligations towards the seller once you have paid for the goods. "No contract" would happen for gifts, or as an example if you download open source software in the USA for free. There will be a difference between a "no contract" contract between business and consumer or between two businesses. Most countries have consumer protection laws so if a deal is advertised as "no contract" and the business demands further payments, they will likely lose. Between two businesses, each side is fully responsible to study the actual contract terms.
If an offer is accepted, you have a contract Oral contracts are binding for most transactions. See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? However, from the circumstances, it’s not clear that there was an offer subject to acceptance. Had the wages been agreed? The hours of work? The annual leave? The sick leave? If these were undetermined then there is no contract.
To form a contract, you must have: Intention to create legal relations Agreement Consideration Legal Capacity Genuine Consent Legality of Objects On the face of it, Alice and Bob's agreement meets these criteria so it is a legally binding contract and Alice would have every prospect of success in a legal action for breach of contract. Specifically: by writing out and signing the agreement they are showing an intention to be legally bound what they have each agreed to do is vey clear; more than many I have seen both parties have provided consideration: dog walking and money there is no suggestion that either was legally incapable of forming a contract genuine consent refers to them actually agreeing what they though they agreed, for example if Alice asked Bob to walk her dog (meaning the Great Dane) and Bob agreed (meaning the Jack Russell) there has not been genuine consent dog walking and paying money are both legal
The clause refers to what might be a lawsuit, which can be adjudicated in appropriate government courts (cf. the choice of law clause), but instead would be submitted to an arbitrator. The contract will spell out the details. An offence is a punishable criminal act, which is outside the scope of civil suits. In US law, the government prosecutes the wrong-doer, not e.g. one of the parties to the contract (if for example the vendor ships an illegal substance to a customer). The same goes for a &quot;breach of law&quot;, depending of course what you mean by breach of law. A breach of contract could not be pursued in court, given a mandatory arbitration clause. The fact that the two parties are in different countries does not nullify a mandatory arbitration clause, at least between the US and the UK.