Litigating for a Violation of Contract
Litigatingfor a Violation of Contract
Issue:Did the agreement make any stipulation for its dissolution? Were thelanguages of the pact too undefined to make it unenforceable? Is thephrasing “10% of all his billings on sales units of DiMex” toounspecified and inexplicit to make it invalid?
Rule:In finding whether the agreements were so indeterminate as not toestablish pacts binding in law, the court rules that the mereomission of the termination time as well as wording of the billingdid not make the contract uncertain. In determining the vagueness ofthe agreement, it was imperative for the court to ask whether theparties comprehended each other without treating in assumption.Accordingly, recent judgments indicate upholding contracts if a courtreaches judicious construction that the parties envisioned tounderstand and ascertain each other. Thus, the wording of thecontract should be construed against the person (in this case, thepromisor) who triggered the ambiguity to exist. In the vagueness ofthe termination time, the court argued “Nor is the contract fatallyuncertain and indefinite, as defendants urge, merely because it omitsa time for its duration.  The effect of the omission from anagreement of the time of its duration is generally determined by aconstruction of the contract.” Haggertyv. Warner (1953) 115 Cal. 2d 473.
Analysis:The court does not look at what the contracting parties premeditatedto construe a pact, but what anybody reasonable would interpret itbased on the language used. The law looks at the termination ofcontracts on ambiguity thus, judges should construe the practicalobjectives of the parties. This means that the court resolve theambiguous words, for instance, “10% of all his billing,” bytaking the meanings of the wording that makes the contractenforceable. The making of the payment “every two months” was notimmeasurable or vague since a reasonable individual would believe theperiod is precise enough to keep the agreement valid.
Conclusion:In assessing the facts presented, a court or judge would find theaccused guilty. In this regard, D. Corp would have to pay theplaintiff a reasonable amount of what he is owed plus interest.
Haggertyv. Warner (1953) 115 Cal. 2d
No related posts.