Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Czechlist] Legal problem

Expand Messages
  • Jan Culka
    Dear Mike, thanks a lot. Now it is clear. Honza ... From: Mike Trittipo To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 30, 2007
      Dear Mike,

      thanks a lot. Now it is clear.
      Honza


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Mike Trittipo
      To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM
      Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Legal problem


      On Jan 30 2007, Jan Culka wrote:

      > Dear all, preferably NSs, the following article is a part of an NDA, and
      > I am not able to understand it in full. Does it make any sense at all?

      Yes. It makes sense. The word "hereto" is flatly wrong both places it
      occurs; the first should be "hereby," and the second should be either
      "hereby" or "therefore" or possibly "accordingly." Personally, I'd omit
      such words entirely if I were drafting it. But that's the only flat-out
      language error.

      The initial "measure fully in money" phrase is a bit unusual; one wonders
      whether "injury" and "damages" were conflated in that same sentence; the
      final phrase "a court of competent jurisdiction" carries a whiff of
      EurEnglish or translatorese; and one questions whether "determine" is
      really the verb that was intended in the last sentence. But such editing
      concerns aside, the meaning is clear enough.

      I'll edit part of it below to produce shorter sentences. The background of
      this whole thing is the idea that almost always, money damages are the
      standard -- and sufficient -- remedy for a broken promise. An injunction is
      not a legal remedy; it is an equitable one -- and it is considered
      "extraordinary," not standard or routine. This paragraph is meant to try to
      get around these ideas.

      "Recipient admits that is impossible to measure fully in money the injury
      that may be caused if Recipient breaks his promises. So Recipient gives up
      any right ever to argue that Discloser's right to demand money damages
      would be enough of a remedy if Recipient were ever to breach. Since the
      legal remedy of money wouldn't be enough, Discloser is therefore entitled
      to the equitable remedy of an injunction to enforce this deal. But
      Discloser is not limited to that remedy alone. Discloser can seek an
      injunction without automatically losing any right to other remedies."





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.