Damn lawyerese!

Question

Ehm... what does this sentence mean??? ;-)) Don't you have the impression that it is ungrammatical?
"Nothing in these Terms of Business shall be enforceable by a third party solely by virtue of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 by any person who is not a signatory to this Agreement other than the Artist."

Kamil

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Don't you have the impression that it is ungrammatical? "Nothing in these Terms of Business shall be enforceable by a ... (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 byany person who is not a signatory to this Agreement other than the Artist."[/nq]
What confounds it is 'by a third party' and 'by any person'. Leave out either phrase and it makes (convoluted) sense. With both I do not know what it means.
Richard Yates

Usenet · Answer

It says , if your name isn't on the contract or your're not the artist you have no rights in the matter.There are matters where a third party can intervene in cases, this is not one of them.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Ehm... what does this sentence mean??? ;-)) Don't you have the impression that it is ungrammatical? "Nothing in these Terms ... of Third Parties) Act 1999 by any person who is not a signatory to this Agreement other than the Artist."[/nq]
Four Notes:
1. According to my Lawyerese English dictionary, terms seeminglyinexplicably capitalized found in a document such as the agreement from which you have excerpted (the "Agreement") are normally defined either in that document or in another, referenced, document. Here, you would expect a definition of "Terms of Business," "Agreement" and "Artist" somewhere in the Agreement prior to the excerpted passage. The practice of using such terms is not - as it appears - to confuse the layman but rather to take a cumbersome phrase that must be defined precisely and used repeatedly and then use a shorthand for that phrase for the rest of the document. (See the term "Act" in the next and subsequent paragraphs for an example of such a "defined" term.)
2. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (the "Act") is anact of the British Parliament. One part of the law of contracts deals with the rights of Harry when Tom and enter into an agreement between themselves that affects Harry but into which Harry will not be entering.
See http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/19990031.htm
3. The excerpted clause is quite grammatical in context. It appearsto be an attempt, in the context of section 1, subsection 2 of the Act, to specify that the signatories intend that no one other than the Artist should be allowed to enforce a term of the Agreement relying solely on the Act. Please note, it is not necessarily the case, as Mr. O'Hara suggests in another response not quoted here, that one has no right in the matter if one is neither a signatory to the Agreement nor the Artist. One may still have a relevant right not enforceable solely by virtue of the Act.
4. I am neither a barrister nor a solicitor and received whateducation I enjoy in Leftpondia.
- Shawn
Note: If my experience is any guide, it can be physically painful to read a contract and then read anything in German.

"Learn all you can. Die smart."
- 1987, Anonymous chalk graffito
University of Michigan, East Quad

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]party[/nq]
It may mean that (probably does, in fact), but it doesn't parse as that.
It's much like a sentence with a redundant that ("I told him that if he misbehaved that I would punish him"), only more so.

Bob Lieblich
Imagine that confusing lawyerese?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It says , if your name isn't on the contract ... can intervene in cases, this is not one of them.[/nq]
[nq:1]It may mean that (probably does, in fact), but it doesn't parse as that. It's much like a sentence with a redundant that ("I told him that if he misbehaved that I would punish him"), only more so.[/nq]
I would interpret rather differently. The Contracts Act gives third parties rights. These terms of business contain nothing that is enforceable by a third party solely* because of the Contracts Act. Exceptions are the signatories and the Artist. However, a third party *can enforce elements of the terms of business so long as they can do so without invoking the Contracts Act.

John Dean
Oxford

Usenet · Answer

I see your point. I think the author wanted to use the phrase "third party" because it matches terms in the Contracts Act of 1999. In the second occurrence, he reverts to English (by any person).

AND you're not the artist.
[nq:2]It may mean that (probably does, in fact), but it ... he misbehaved that I would punish him"), only more so.[/nq]
[nq:1]I would interpret rather differently. The Contracts Act gives third parties rights. These terms of business contain nothing that is ... can enforce elements of the terms of business so long as they can do so without invoking the Contracts Act.[/nq]
The last sentence here seems doubtful for three reasons:

"Can* enforce elements" seems to assume there are such elements. Might not be. "*May enforce elements" or something like that.

I don't have any experience in this, but I still have the feeling that, once the use of the Contracts Act is so limited, there are no such elements to be found.
And OTOH, the original didn't say that a third party cannot invoke the contracts act, only that he can't enforce anything solely because of it.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years

Damn lawyerese!

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions