4 ms·
You have a lawyer review the contract and they are held responsible if they are approving known-unenforceable agreements.
by tyre 8y ago
You have a lawyer review the contract and they are held responsible if they are approving known-unenforceable agreements.
- slededit 8y agoThe situation you are not handling is an "unknown"-unenforceable agreement though. I get that you are trying to solve the knowingly-unenforceable contract situation, but there is a lot of collateral damage with your proposal.
- FreeFull 8y agoTwo parties can form a contract without a lawyer ever being involved, though.
- cimmanom 8y agoWhat about the case where the contract is enforceable at the time of signing but the law changes after it's been signed?
- s73v3r_ 8y agoWhat about it? At the time it was signed, it was enforceable. So the lawyer would be fine.
- cimmanom 8y agoShould the entire contract then become void when one subclause becomes unenforceable? If not, how is this different from the case where a previously unenforceable clause becomes enforceable?
- tyre 8y agoNo. There are standard, specific clauses in contracts to prevent this. If one clause is deemed void, the rest of the contract stays as is.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoBut that's the problem that we've got now. Being able to have such a blanket clause encourages putting in all kinds of crap to see what sticks.
- tathougies 8y agoThis is ridiculous because the vast majority of regulations have never been tested in court. If you punished lawyers for making good faith attempts at following the law, all you'll do is encourage lawyers to resort to ever nefarious means to avoid punishment.