Managing the contractual
relationship in the right direction. As
we read contractual information, we can find: express terms, implied-in-fact terms and implied-in-law
terms, but also we have mandatory terms, permissive terms and default rules,
all of them giving consistent basis for contract formation, contractual
relationship, interpretation, evaluation, judgment, arbitration, etc.
In the
construction field, terms and conditions are essential for proper relationship,
particularly for large projects. As far
as I understand, even though it could be agreed and express terms, in case of
non-compliance, potential breach and dispute, courts could reclassify a term or
condition into a condition or term respectively, depending on if the
non-compliance was or was not material.
So in accordance with this idea, we could reasonably think that a term
in a contract could be reclassified by a court taking into account the
particular situation. In complex
contracts, time to time, terms and their wording could have more than one
interpretation generating confusion at the time of interpretation, here the
question: do you think that a constant and consistent attitude with an
interpretation of an ambiguous express term could finally induce an intention
that could influence on the final interpretation, changing the express term into
a condition of an applied-in-fact term?
No comments:
Post a Comment