GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
23:30 Jan 22, 2009 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Anton Baer United Kingdom Local time: 10:23 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | A one-time waiver |
| ||
4 | The statement is contradictory |
|
A one-time waiver Explanation: It means any waiver of condition or breach of the contract that is allowed or agreed to ("let's ignore what just happened") will only be a one-time waiver, i.e., don't let it happen again. Your definition of "waiver" is correct. However, it's not "waiver of the breach". It's "waiver of the condition", or "breach of the contract". -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2009-01-23 00:45:07 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Edward, apologies. I see now that this was exactly your question -- if 'waiver of the breach' means 'waiver of the obligation'. In a roundabout way, it does. Using Google I see this term "waiver of the breach" shows up in legal writings. I can't imagine a different meaning for 'to waive a breach', i.e. the possible notion that a specific breach can be temporarily redefined as 'not a breach' in that specific instance. |
| ||
Grading comment
| |||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
The statement is contradictory Explanation: In the beginning they are saying "NO waiver", and then they say "shall be deemed to be, or considered as, a further or continuing waiver" I think it should be "Any Waiver" as below Any waiver by any party of any condition or of the breach of any term contained in this Agreement, whether by conduct, or otherwise, in any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be, or considered as, a further or continuing waiver of any such condition or of the breach of such term or any other term of this Agreement. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2009-01-23 00:51:02 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I did look at it and as the last part is so specific, and direct, it could have only been the first word which was incorrect. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.