The case law has largely smoothed the effects of the underlying legal concepts, but not completely. For example, if one party gives the other party an option in one section and the exercise price and exercise time in other sections, it would be unthinkable for the option to be exerciseable without exercise price or for an indeterminate period. However, it is recommended that an explicit link be made, at least between the main obligations of an agreement. The rules of good practice. Words are subject to… should not be used to complete a provision or simply to bind two or more clauses. In addition, the under- listing of a clause should be specific to other provisions (i.e. refer to certain sections) and, if possible, should not refer in general to that agreement. Avoid combining the words to which they are subject to the exception, except as stipulated in a sentence. “The terms of this proposal are governed by the terms of this agreement. The sentence that is subject to the terms of this agreement (or subject to the terms of this agreement) is often superfluous because it is too broad. It is clear that the rights and obligations of the contracting parties must be considered as a whole and not as a one-condition clause by considering the agreement. But the aspects of ownership are disturbing in this regard.
This applies in particular to the sale and transfer of a right or commodity in the context of a right or commodity under the law of a Roman or German law jurisdiction (because Germany applies the so-called abstract system for a transfer of ownership): the seller wishes to find that the transfer of the right or the goods (for example. B to section 2.1 of the sales contract) of the correct performance of all other obligations is essential. If the condition does not exist, the buyer`s failure to execute leaves the seller with the goods sold or the sellers and a right to the payment of the purchase price. Where conditionality is established and the buyer is in default, the seller is considered (after the fact) to be the owner and is entitled to damages. In Realm Resources Ltd v Aurora Place Investments Pty Ltd , NSWSC 379, Aurora (sub-lessor) and Realm (sub-tenant) signed a lease for a five-year office sublease in the Sydney CBD. The lease proposal contained the following “subject” condition: although both cases were due to the completion of a transaction that wished to withdraw from an agreement before the execution of a final contract, a duly formulated “condition” may have avoided the need for litigation. All copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property rights on this site are owned by Exis and are protected by national laws and international treaty provisions.