How would you interpret this?

[e.rose]

"Any waiver of a breach or default hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach or default of either the same provision or any other provision of this Agreement".

Am I correct in thinking that means, if some part of the contract is broken, but is excused by the offended party, that doesn't mean future breaches of the contract is automatically excusable?

EDIT: MY BAD!!! I had a typo. The bolded, underlined word used to say "or"... but it really should say "of"... sort of changes things.

 

[e.rose]

I haven't got a ******* clue mate, sorry!

 

[dots]

That is totally impenetrable legalese! No wonder lawyers are so rich!

 

[e.rose]

That is totally impenetrable legalese! No wonder lawyers are so rich!

Damn lawyers! :lmao:

 

[mishele]

I had to read that 3 times and still I don't know if I understand what that means!!!
Where the hell are you reading that?? RUN!!

 

[e.rose]

I had to read that 3 times and still I don't know if I understand what that means!!!
Where the hell are you reading that?? RUN!!

Hahaha, it's not me. It's the boys... They've already planned on talking to a lawyer before signing anything, but they were just trying to figure it out right now.

And I'm playing a game I used to play in Music Business class in college called "Catch the contract loopholes".

I'm just trying to see if anyone else thinks that's what it means too and then I get to pat myself on the back if it turns out I'm right. :lmao:

 

[shootermcgavin]

It's a tough one, there's something I put at the end of contracts that sounds some what similar. It might mean if any one part of the contract is not legal the rest is still binding... Sometimes a good lawyer will find a part of a contract that doesn't apply with the law and then they can throw the whole contract out, so there's usually something at the end that saves you from that. I think it's worded weirdly though.

 

[e.rose]

OOOOPS! Typo! Mish, read it again... see if that changes things.

 

[e.rose]

It's a tough one, there's something I put at the end of contracts that sounds some what similar. It might mean if any one part of the contract is not legal the rest is still binding... Sometimes a good lawyer will find a part of a contract that doesn't apply with the law and then they can throw the whole contract out, so there's usually something at the end that saves you from that. I think it's worded weirdly though.

Ohhhh, that makes sense.

 

[mishele]

OOOOPS! Typo! Mish, read it again... see if that changes things.

Great....now I only had to read it 2 times! lol I still think run....lol

 

[e.rose]

As a guess..it is stating that one breach of contract will not impact detrimentally upon others.

"Any waiver of a breach or default hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach or default of either the same provision or any other provision of this Agreement".

Am I correct in thinking that means, if some part of the contract is broken, but is excused by the offended party, that doesn't mean future breaches of the contract is automatically excusable?

EDIT: MY BAD!!! I had a typo. The bolded, underlined word used to say "or"... but it really should say "of"... sort of changes things.

which is basically what I was trying to say in my interpretation of it.

 

[Kal3ido]

I feel your right. If my sister was here I could just ask her. She's a lawyer =-)

 

[bogeyguy]

"Any waiver of a breach or default hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach or default of either the same provision or any other provision of this Agreement".

Am I correct in thinking that means, if some part of the contract is broken, but is excused by the offended party, that doesn't mean future breaches of the contract is automatically excusable?

EDIT: MY BAD!!! I had a typo. The bolded, underlined word used to say "or"... but it really should say "of"... sort of changes things.

To me it sounds like you nailed the meaning.

 

[Overread17 5]

"Any waiver of a breach or default hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach or default of either the same provision or any other provision of this Agreement".

Am I correct in thinking that means, if some part of the contract is broken, but is excused by the offended party, that doesn't mean future breaches of the contract is automatically excusable?

Yes, but also note that the waiver only works once; if the same clause comes up again you have to deal with it fresh and the previous waiver does not stand.

 

[mishele]

^^^^^HEY where were you....lol We had a busy day around here...lol