> It really doesn't, at least not in the US. I've had American attorneys consistently tell me otherwise, though I've never had to put the idea into practice my

> It really doesn't, at least not in the US. I've had American attorneys consistently tell me otherwise, though I've never had to put the idea into practice myself. > So even if there is a case to make that you shouldn't need to comply with some terms of a contract you are bound by you still need the resources (both in terms of relevant supporting documents and in terms of time and money) to actually prove that case in a court of law. Perhaps in theory, but IME the reality is the opposite: A contract is only worth what you are willing to invest the resources - money, time, attention, and frequently social/political capital - in enforcing.