No violation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Amwelladmin moved page No violation - Representation to No violation)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{repanat|no violation}}
{{repanat|no violation|}}
No, it doesn't make any sense to add this agreement, nor to have a separate continuing warranty that you have not breached this agreement. That is tantamount to a {{repprov|no event of default}} rep — so you should already have it — and as canvassed in that very article, that [[representation]] is  in any case a big old waste of time in any case. If I tell you I have not breached the agreement, but in actual fact I have, in what way are you in a better position than if I didn't tell you that?
{{rep no violation}}
{{sa}}
*{{isdaprov|No Violation or Conflict}} under the {{isdama}}

Latest revision as of 18:54, 19 December 2020

Representations and Warranties Anatomy™


A “typical” no violation clause:

No violation: execution of and performance of your obligations under this agreement does not breach applicable rules, your constitutional documents or any other agreements by which you are bound.

view template


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.


See also