The dispute consisted of the sentence beginning with «Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this document» and was in the middle of the paragraph on production royalties. What did «here» mean? If it was the entire agreement, the mining company owed $75,000 a year, no matter what. However, while the phrase «here» referred only to the sale of production royalties, in the absence of mining, there was never liability for production royalties and, therefore, the mining company was not required to pay the minimum production royalty. There are many ways to write the sentence despite contrary things to mean the same or something similar, such as: The law was passed despite strong opposition. I want it to be said that the law was passed against strong opposition. What am I missing? Pam, thanks for the answer, I appreciate it! The prefix «not» bothers me. In my first sentence, it does not matter if I interpret the meaning as «not» intact, in other words, it was adopted, but it was influenced by the opposition. Anyway, «despite» means. In a sentence, let`s first think of it as a preposition: the different sentence can also be used to make a change in the order of precedence of rights and obligations in a distance contract.
This case teaches that clauses «anyway» are bad tools when it comes to binding a contract without creating surprises. The case also shows the dangers of the word «here.» «Here» could refer to anything – the entire agreement, a single paragraph, or just a specific concept in the agreement. That`s a lazy way to make a point. Examples of this word in legal documents include: The court also noted that another paragraph states that production royalties «are based on the removal [of materials]. ownership. Id., p. 474. The «nevertheless» clause does not seem to have taken precedence over this wording. Other less interesting parts of the deal also advanced the court`s conclusion, and the landowner lost. Best practice – no, notwithstanding the above. While the above may seem relatively harmless, since the countercutting provision seems close, the above could possibly refer to the previous sentence, the entire previous part of the body of the contract, or something in between. However, I see constantly used in chords regardless of the position of its complement (or at least the clear identification of its complement), which can lead to these contrary interpretations.
The phrase «notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this document» could be interpreted literally to mean that the supplement should apply to any other element of the document with which it is in conflict. However, this is not the meaning we are looking for. It seems to me that the correct wording would be to add «Notwithstanding what is different here, … This clearly shows that what follows will trump all the rest of the agreement. «Anything that goes in the sense» basically means this. The answer is B. In legal documents, «nevertheless» is yet another word for «nevertheless.» Best practice – lex specialis. Consider not using it anyway. Often, despite provisions to the contrary, an author uses the opposite to protect an important provision from a conflicting provision, regardless of the provision. In many cases, introtz is redundant. As with the subject matter, it would be difficult for a party to argue that a clause inserted despite a different provision, despite its clear wording, was not intended to derogate from or limit the other provision. The argument would be that a specific rule takes precedence over a general principle (lex specialis derogat legi generali).
When a lawyer uses the phrase «notwithstanding anything to the contrary» in contracts, care must be taken to ensure that that provision of the contract supersedes any other provision of the contract relating to the same subject matter or possibly contradictory in substance. Nevertheless, in general, however, despite or despite the legal drafting. Its meaning in legal documents doesn`t change – it`s still just another word for anyway. «Notwithstanding anything to the contrary» means, for example, that a clause prevails over anything that may subsequently contradict it. These and other multisyllabic connectors such as inasmuch are common in legal writings such as contracts, official reports, judgments, and other legal documents.