Are unclear “take-it or leave-it” contracts interpreted in my favor?Employer Paying Less Than AgreedWhat...
Can fluent English speakers distinguish “steel”, “still” and “steal”?
How would vampires avoid contracting diseases?
What was the definition of "set" that resulted in Russell's Paradox
Professor falsely accusing me of cheating in a class he does not teach, 2 months after end of the class. What precautions should I take?
Did the Vulgar Latin verb "toccare" exist?
Print the last, middle and first character of your code
Was I subtly told to resign?
Cops: The Hidden OEIS Substring
What is the job of the acoustic cavities inside the main combustion chamber?
Credit score and financing new car
Why are they 'nude photos'?
Using Newton's shell theorem to accelerate a spaceship
Is "I do not want you to go nowhere" a case of "DOUBLE-NEGATIVES" as claimed by Grammarly?
Managing and organizing the massively increased number of classes after switching to SOLID?
Has anyone in space seen or photographed a simple laser pointer from Earth?
What's the point of having a RAID 1 configuration over incremental backups to a secondary drive?
Are randomly-generated passwords starting with "a" less secure?
Machine learning and operations research projects
Changing trains in the Netherlands
Should disabled buttons give feedback when clicked?
Is the genetic term "polycistronic" still used in modern biology?
How were Martello towers supposed to work?
Is Trump personally blocking people on Twitter?
If a non-friend comes across my Steam Wishlist, how easily can he gift me one of the games?
Are unclear “take-it or leave-it” contracts interpreted in my favor?
Employer Paying Less Than AgreedWhat happens when a contract was signed but a party can't fullfill their oblications due to circumstances outside their controlShould contracts always contain the phrase “he or she” when the person could be either gender?When a contract is being analyzed in court, is it the understanding of the parties or the written contract that is to be established?Are so-called “BDSM Contracts” legally enforceable? What specific laws would forbid this?Is the usual contract writing style being questioned and a radically new one proposed?Can I amend boilerplate contracts by mail?Do/can integration clauses terminate other contracts?Can I sue a client for the 'delta' in price if I accepted his (insulting) offer?How to judge if a contract is detailed enough?Is This Parental Leave Policy Compromise Legally Sound?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
In the accepted answer to this question, it's written that:
Since this is (presumably) a take-it or leave it contract which they wrote up and you didn't actually negotiate, any unclarities are legally interpreted in your favor.
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract? And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
united-states contract-law contract
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
add a comment |
In the accepted answer to this question, it's written that:
Since this is (presumably) a take-it or leave it contract which they wrote up and you didn't actually negotiate, any unclarities are legally interpreted in your favor.
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract? And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
united-states contract-law contract
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
add a comment |
In the accepted answer to this question, it's written that:
Since this is (presumably) a take-it or leave it contract which they wrote up and you didn't actually negotiate, any unclarities are legally interpreted in your favor.
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract? And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
united-states contract-law contract
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
In the accepted answer to this question, it's written that:
Since this is (presumably) a take-it or leave it contract which they wrote up and you didn't actually negotiate, any unclarities are legally interpreted in your favor.
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract? And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
united-states contract-law contract
united-states contract-law contract
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
1435 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract?
The lack --be it essential or literal lack-- of opportunity to negotiate the terms of a contract. That is also known as adhesion contract.
And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
Rather than "categorically [interpreted]", a more accurate characterization is to say "reasonably [interpreted]". Among the reasonable interpretations of a contract, the adopted one is that which favors the party who was not the draftsman of the contract. This is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem and is cognizable in jurisdictions of the U.S. and in many others world-wide.
The doctrine of contra proferentem is sought to compensate for the gap of parties' bargaining power. In an adhesion contract, the fact that one party may only accept the contract "as is" (or reject, which would render this a moot issue) evidences that the draftsman of that contract has significantly more bargaining power.
A contract need not be one of adhesion in order to trigger the doctrine of contra proferentem, though. In the case of negotiated contracts, the doctrine may apply selectively so as to interpret ambiguous clauses against the party who ultimately caused the ambiguity in those clauses. Some jurisdictions are more emphatic about this aspect of contract law, which at first glance may seem a departure from the principle of interpretation [literally] against the draftsman.
There could be scenarios where a party (the non-draftsman) suggests a clause, and the draftsman incorporates that clause but devises some wording to render the contract unclear in that regard. The doctrine would apply not merely by virtue of the latter party being the draftsman, but because he in his capacity of draftsman tweaked the clause arguably in an attempt to frustrate the other party's interest in --or purpose for-- that clause.
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42831%2fare-unclear-take-it-or-leave-it-contracts-interpreted-in-my-favor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract?
The lack --be it essential or literal lack-- of opportunity to negotiate the terms of a contract. That is also known as adhesion contract.
And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
Rather than "categorically [interpreted]", a more accurate characterization is to say "reasonably [interpreted]". Among the reasonable interpretations of a contract, the adopted one is that which favors the party who was not the draftsman of the contract. This is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem and is cognizable in jurisdictions of the U.S. and in many others world-wide.
The doctrine of contra proferentem is sought to compensate for the gap of parties' bargaining power. In an adhesion contract, the fact that one party may only accept the contract "as is" (or reject, which would render this a moot issue) evidences that the draftsman of that contract has significantly more bargaining power.
A contract need not be one of adhesion in order to trigger the doctrine of contra proferentem, though. In the case of negotiated contracts, the doctrine may apply selectively so as to interpret ambiguous clauses against the party who ultimately caused the ambiguity in those clauses. Some jurisdictions are more emphatic about this aspect of contract law, which at first glance may seem a departure from the principle of interpretation [literally] against the draftsman.
There could be scenarios where a party (the non-draftsman) suggests a clause, and the draftsman incorporates that clause but devises some wording to render the contract unclear in that regard. The doctrine would apply not merely by virtue of the latter party being the draftsman, but because he in his capacity of draftsman tweaked the clause arguably in an attempt to frustrate the other party's interest in --or purpose for-- that clause.
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
add a comment |
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract?
The lack --be it essential or literal lack-- of opportunity to negotiate the terms of a contract. That is also known as adhesion contract.
And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
Rather than "categorically [interpreted]", a more accurate characterization is to say "reasonably [interpreted]". Among the reasonable interpretations of a contract, the adopted one is that which favors the party who was not the draftsman of the contract. This is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem and is cognizable in jurisdictions of the U.S. and in many others world-wide.
The doctrine of contra proferentem is sought to compensate for the gap of parties' bargaining power. In an adhesion contract, the fact that one party may only accept the contract "as is" (or reject, which would render this a moot issue) evidences that the draftsman of that contract has significantly more bargaining power.
A contract need not be one of adhesion in order to trigger the doctrine of contra proferentem, though. In the case of negotiated contracts, the doctrine may apply selectively so as to interpret ambiguous clauses against the party who ultimately caused the ambiguity in those clauses. Some jurisdictions are more emphatic about this aspect of contract law, which at first glance may seem a departure from the principle of interpretation [literally] against the draftsman.
There could be scenarios where a party (the non-draftsman) suggests a clause, and the draftsman incorporates that clause but devises some wording to render the contract unclear in that regard. The doctrine would apply not merely by virtue of the latter party being the draftsman, but because he in his capacity of draftsman tweaked the clause arguably in an attempt to frustrate the other party's interest in --or purpose for-- that clause.
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
add a comment |
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract?
The lack --be it essential or literal lack-- of opportunity to negotiate the terms of a contract. That is also known as adhesion contract.
And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
Rather than "categorically [interpreted]", a more accurate characterization is to say "reasonably [interpreted]". Among the reasonable interpretations of a contract, the adopted one is that which favors the party who was not the draftsman of the contract. This is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem and is cognizable in jurisdictions of the U.S. and in many others world-wide.
The doctrine of contra proferentem is sought to compensate for the gap of parties' bargaining power. In an adhesion contract, the fact that one party may only accept the contract "as is" (or reject, which would render this a moot issue) evidences that the draftsman of that contract has significantly more bargaining power.
A contract need not be one of adhesion in order to trigger the doctrine of contra proferentem, though. In the case of negotiated contracts, the doctrine may apply selectively so as to interpret ambiguous clauses against the party who ultimately caused the ambiguity in those clauses. Some jurisdictions are more emphatic about this aspect of contract law, which at first glance may seem a departure from the principle of interpretation [literally] against the draftsman.
There could be scenarios where a party (the non-draftsman) suggests a clause, and the draftsman incorporates that clause but devises some wording to render the contract unclear in that regard. The doctrine would apply not merely by virtue of the latter party being the draftsman, but because he in his capacity of draftsman tweaked the clause arguably in an attempt to frustrate the other party's interest in --or purpose for-- that clause.
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
What makes something a take-it or leave-it contract?
The lack --be it essential or literal lack-- of opportunity to negotiate the terms of a contract. That is also known as adhesion contract.
And (if I am the one taking it), are unclear clauses categorically interpreted in my favor?
Rather than "categorically [interpreted]", a more accurate characterization is to say "reasonably [interpreted]". Among the reasonable interpretations of a contract, the adopted one is that which favors the party who was not the draftsman of the contract. This is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem and is cognizable in jurisdictions of the U.S. and in many others world-wide.
The doctrine of contra proferentem is sought to compensate for the gap of parties' bargaining power. In an adhesion contract, the fact that one party may only accept the contract "as is" (or reject, which would render this a moot issue) evidences that the draftsman of that contract has significantly more bargaining power.
A contract need not be one of adhesion in order to trigger the doctrine of contra proferentem, though. In the case of negotiated contracts, the doctrine may apply selectively so as to interpret ambiguous clauses against the party who ultimately caused the ambiguity in those clauses. Some jurisdictions are more emphatic about this aspect of contract law, which at first glance may seem a departure from the principle of interpretation [literally] against the draftsman.
There could be scenarios where a party (the non-draftsman) suggests a clause, and the draftsman incorporates that clause but devises some wording to render the contract unclear in that regard. The doctrine would apply not merely by virtue of the latter party being the draftsman, but because he in his capacity of draftsman tweaked the clause arguably in an attempt to frustrate the other party's interest in --or purpose for-- that clause.
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42831%2fare-unclear-take-it-or-leave-it-contracts-interpreted-in-my-favor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
