83,371
edits
Survival of obligations: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|boilerplate|}}A boilerplate term that nominates certain provisions of the agreement that are deemed to carry on notwithstanding the end of the Agreement itself. In most cases survival of obligations clauses result from a misconception about how damages work in a contract and are, as such, a sort of category error. The thing is: when you terminate a contract, or it comes to its natural end, it is not wiped from the horizon with a Nietzschean sponge — it i...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
One does not need a survival of obligations clause to attain that outcome. That is the whole point of the law of contract. | One does not need a survival of obligations clause to attain that outcome. That is the whole point of the law of contract. | ||
====Security arrangements==== | |||
For some reason the presence of a security arrangement — deep magic for certain strip of legal eagle — gives rise to survival clauses. | |||
====NDAs==== | |||
An interesting conceptual question is what happens on an NDA when it terminates — often (but the JC has never quite understood why) expressed to have a one or two year term. It not really being possible to return electronic information, what happens? are you just allowed to publish it to the world? | |||
Of course not — yet it is not that common to include a survival of obligations clause (there is not one in the OneNDA, for example) | |||
====ISDA==== | |||
You see it in the {{isdama}} thought there the vibe is slightly different, in that it clarifies that obligations survive a termination of a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} — at which point the master agreement itself is still in situ. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*{{isdaprov|Survival of Obligations}} (ISDA) | |||