Rights cumulative: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{boileranat|rights cumulative}}
{{boileranat|rights cumulative|}}Somewhere, once upon a time, one of our learned friends must have had a near-death experience, psychotic episode, or somehow hit on the paranoid thought that a contract conferred by contract might inadvertently squish one arising at common law or under statute.
 
In some cases that is inevitable, you should embrace it, and a hastily injected [[rights cumulative]] clause is a chocolate teapot anyway: there is no [[concurrent liability]], for example, in [[contract]] and [[tort]], because they are yin and yang: [[tort]] is the system of rights and obligations that are presumed to exist between otherwise unconnected people whose existences interfere with each other — who are neighbours, in Lord Atkin’s well-oiled phrase, but not lovers (in mine) — who haven’t directly agreed what the rights and obligations between should be.

Revision as of 15:24, 30 June 2020

Boilerplate Anatomy™



A “typical” rights cumulative clause:

Except to the extent provided to the contrary in this Agreement, each party’s rights, powers, remedies and privileges, as provided in this Agreement, are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights, powers, remedies and privileges conferred upon that party by operation of law.

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

Somewhere, once upon a time, one of our learned friends must have had a near-death experience, psychotic episode, or somehow hit on the paranoid thought that a contract conferred by contract might inadvertently squish one arising at common law or under statute.

In some cases that is inevitable, you should embrace it, and a hastily injected rights cumulative clause is a chocolate teapot anyway: there is no concurrent liability, for example, in contract and tort, because they are yin and yang: tort is the system of rights and obligations that are presumed to exist between otherwise unconnected people whose existences interfere with each other — who are neighbours, in Lord Atkin’s well-oiled phrase, but not lovers (in mine) — who haven’t directly agreed what the rights and obligations between should be.