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?
Why isn't pressure filtration popular compared to vacuum filtration?
When casting Eldritch Blast with the Agonizing Blast eldritch invocation, what do I add to my damage roll?
What is this triple-transistor arrangement called?
Does Lufthansa weigh your carry on luggage?
Cops: The Hidden OEIS Substring
As the Dungeon Master, how do I handle a player that insists on a specific class when I already know that choice will cause issues?
During copyediting, journal disagrees about spelling of paper's main topic
Keep milk (or milk alternative) for a day without a fridge
How do you glue a text to a point?
Why are they 'nude photos'?
What's the point of having a RAID 1 configuration over incremental backups to a secondary drive?
Storming Area 51
Received a dinner invitation through my employer's email, is it ok to attend?
Why are Hobbits so fond of mushrooms?
Generating random numbers that keep a minimum distance
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, make me a match
Are randomly-generated passwords starting with "a" less secure?
For a hashing function like MD5, how similar can two plaintext strings be and still generate the same hash?
How can I deal with a player trying to insert real-world mythology into my homebrew setting?
Are unclear "take-it or leave-it" contracts interpreted in my favor?
Why did Harry Potter get a bedroom?
Would dual wielding daggers be a viable choice for a covert bodyguard?
How would vampires avoid contracting diseases?
How can one write good dialogue in a story without sounding wooden?
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 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
John HughesJohn Hughes
1435 bronze badges
asked 9 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 7 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 7 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 7 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 7 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 7 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
13.1k2 gold badges21 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered 7 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
