When individuals in actual property and different enterprise transactions negotiate their contracts, they give thought to what may occur later and what authorized penalties ought to come up from these occasions or circumstances. For instance, a contract may prohibit a celebration from doing one thing. It may also say that if a celebration desires to do one thing, then the opposite social gathering has sure rights, similar to a consent proper.
These provisions usually give attention to regardless of the events have on their thoughts, however they generally don’t go so far as they need to. The online results of this failure is a niche that enables one social gathering or the opposite to do one thing that, if the events had thought to deal with it of their contract, would seemingly not have been allowed. This deficiency appears to come up most frequently in contract language regarding transfers.
As one quite common instance, many leases and different contracts limit the suitable of a celebration to assign the contract, or in different phrases usher in another person who would take over that social gathering’s rights and obligations underneath the contract. Typically a contract or lease project requires the opposite social gathering’s consent. Different instances no consent is required if the project meets sure checks.
In one latest Delaware case, a contract stated {that a} social gathering couldn’t switch its rights or obligations underneath the contract “by project, … merger, consolidation, … [or] change in administration or management” of that social gathering. The social gathering topic to that project restriction was owned by a holding firm, which was in flip by owned by one other holding firm, which was in flip owned by a 3rd holding firm—primarily a great-grandparent firm.
That final firm, the great-grandparent, was the topic of a company merger that resulted in a change of management and a substitute of managers in any respect ranges all through the enterprise.
The opposite social gathering to the contract argued that the company merger of the great-grandparent amounted to a prohibited switch of the contract. The courtroom disagreed, concluding that the merger occurred on the great-grandparent firm degree. The contract itself wasn’t transferred by merger or some other means. The contracting social gathering remained as the very same entity owned by the very same holding firm.
That’s maybe not what the events (or at the very least considered one of them) had in thoughts after they wrote their anti-transfer language. After they referred to a “merger” or “change in administration or management” they may have been fascinated by potential company transactions anyplace within the possession construction. However that’s not what they stated. They simply referred to a “switch” of the contract by numerous potential means. A type of potential technique of “transferring” the contract was a merger, which might have captured the case the place simply the precise contracting social gathering merged into one other entity and transferred the contract as a part of the merger. Technically, although, that’s not what really occurred. What really occurred was one thing else, past the scope of the restriction that the events had negotiated.
The switch prohibition within the contract sounded fairly fierce and in depth in principle. In follow, although, it didn’t accomplish regardless of the events might have needed it to perform. This occurs with astonishing frequency, creating openings for contracting events to do issues that the opposite social gathering may understand as being inconsistent with the “spirit” of the deal.
When attorneys and their shoppers negotiate contracts, they should look ahead to these kinds of gaps and openings. Maybe they’re intentional, however maybe not. In contract negotiations, it could assist to transcend the phrases within the doc and take into consideration the wide selection of potential occasions that may occur, after which ensure that the phrases seize every little thing they need to seize.
