COVID-19: We're Serious About Safe Travel     READ MORE >

Journal > Agree Agreement Agreeable

Agree Agreement Agreeable

April 8th, 2021

Although I do not predict that this will ever happen, if the Dunbar is not built within ten (10) years or if the sculptures are not pleasantly exhibited elsewhere, I will give you 50% of the profits from the sale of the sculptures of a quarter and a quarter of a life, after having recovered all my expenses for the creation of the sculptures and such a sale. And here are some examples of pleasant used to convey meaning 3, with my alternative formulation noted in parentheses: In summary, the stylists of point prose would be far from meanings 2 and 3 pleasant; Contract signatures should run a mile from them. Whoever designed Costner`s contract probably had in mind that it would probably be the adverbiale form of meaning 3 pleasant. It is perhaps easier to see than if you dispute the sentence in The Active Voice: “If … we show the sculptures not pleasant elsewhere …. But if the meaning 3 of pleasant is not useful, pleasant is a way of expressing a radically suboptimal way to express the intended meaning: “if … we don`t agree to show the sculptures elsewhere…. conditions that accrue to the licensee [read that the licensee gives written consent] The word enters into a single contract on EDGAR last year. Unsurprisingly, a use is inconsistent: “[T]he Mortgagee … The [Mortgaged Property] can simply pass on to the buyer in fees, pleasantly done to the law in such a case…. In a manner and at times acceptable to both parties by the director and the responsible chairman [see how the director and the competent president give their written consent] Of course, this is a contract; Go here for a pdf copy. (This is the first time I`ve been linked to celebrity site TMZ.) What struck me was the pleasant use of the word in the language of the contract at issue (emphasizing) that my only problem with costner`s description of the contractual dispute is that it says it is pleasantly ambiguous. I do not think that is the case, because it is easy to find the intended meaning.

On the contrary, the problem was that the treaty did not define how the parties should express their agreement. The source of the uncertainty was therefore not ambiguity, but the failure to be sufficiently specific. (Chapter 6 of the MSCD examines the various sources of uncertainty; this March 2008 AdamsDrafting blog post is a first draft of this chapter. But think of the context. This recital is an amendment to a loan agreement; The above recital indicates that borrowers want the agent and lenders to waive explicit non-compliance. To say that the agent and lenders are willing to waive this non-compliance, it would be clearer and more standardist to use. It seems strange that the recitals, using a pleasant agreement, provide for the agreement which is reflected in the prehistory that follows the recitals (the parties therefore agree as follows).