Contract

[kerrync]

Hi, my question relates to the below contract clause (I am the respondent):

If Zozo Corporation sues Hui Fencing for a claim related to the black fence, does this clause automatically mean that I am not eligible for a claim for part of that from Zozo Corporation?

The respondent releases

(a) Huli Fencing (except for any claim regarding to the black fence); and
(b) Zozo Corporation;

And each from any costs etc.

 

[latigo]

Hi, my question relates to the below settlement clause (I am the respondent):

If Zozo Corporation sues Hui Fencing for a claim related to the black fence, does this settlement automatically mean that I am not eligible for a claim for part of that from Zozo Corporation?

The respondent releases

(a) Zozo Corporation; and
(b) Huli Fencing (save for any claim regarding to the black fence);

And each of them from any costs whatsoever.

You’ve posed a hypothetical about a suppositious so-called “settlement clause” based upon the prospects of Zozo Corporation settling a lawsuit, which it might file against Hui Fence.

So, kindly explain why we are asked to interpret such a “settlement clause”, when:

1. No lawsuit has been filed.

2. You give us no reason to believe that you will be a named party to any such lawsuit - thus negating any consideration supporting your releasing anyone.

3. That has the earmarks of the work of a trained squirrel.

 

[sandyclaus]

Hi, my question relates to the below settlement clause (I am the respondent):

If Zozo Corporation sues Hui Fencing for a claim related to the black fence, does this settlement automatically mean that I am not eligible for a claim for part of that from Zozo Corporation?

The respondent releases

(a) Zozo Corporation; and
(b) Huli Fencing (save for any claim regarding to the black fence);

And each of them from any costs whatsoever.

Smells like homework to me.

 

[justalayman]

I don't know if it is homework but apparently lived in the land of Oz as recently as 2010.


https://forum.freeadvice.com/banking-credit-cards-18/cheque-what-stage-considered-payment-517190.html

Unless they released him, I don't think this forum will do much good.

 

[kerrync]

No, its a genuine post.

It is a release clause.

I have simplified this clause and changed irrelevant details so the parties cannot be identified (I should of explained this).

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, this forum is for US law only.

 

[justalayman]

No, its a genuine post.
.

the problem though is if this is not about a situation in the US, US law is going to do you no good. You just cannot apply one country's laws to a situation in another country and come up with anything that makes a difference in the situation.

 

[kerrync]

I would have thought that the idea of the settlement is to over ride what the law may say (to a reasonable common law extent), therefore the need for the settlement and the reliance on its terms, and not the countries law etc.

I am not a legal person but both Australia and the US rely on the same common law.

 

[justalayman]

kerrync;3221958]I would have thought that the idea of the settlement is to over ride what the law may say (to a reasonable common law extent), therefore the need for the settlement and the reliance on its terms, and not the countries law etc.

OUR common law is not YOUR common law. OUR common law is based on court decisions in OUR country. I would presume your common is created similarly and since the mind of an Aussie is very different than the mind of a Yank, those decisions will be very different. Beyond that, our common laws cannot be used in your courts.

I am not a legal person but both Australia and the US rely on the same common law to an extent

concepts are irrelevant unless the laws resulting from those concepts is identical. There are laws specifically tailored to contracts in the US as well as a variety of other laws that may be applicable to your situation. Unless our lawmakers have been moonlighting in the land of Oz, our laws are just not going to mean a thing in your country.