Today
Comments
Interesting and important indeed. I didn’t know of such anti drafter rule. Really weired. On the other hand, I must admit, that if the purpose of it, is ( quoting the dissenting opinion of justice Kagan ) to:
“…encourages the drafter to set out its intent in clear contractual language, for the other party then to see and agree to ”
Then it does make some sense. Yet, on the other hand, in many cases ( and like this current case it seems ) the problem with contracts is the inability to predict chaotic occurrences, strictly, beyond control and premeditation of parties. Then just attitude, would be to asses and re- asses in fact the purpose of the contract as had been conceived by parties to it, and in fundamental terms, and incorporate or re- incorporate it to the contract itself.
But such blind rule or attitude, is really weired I must admit.
Thanks
Posted by: El roam | Apr 25, 2019 8:02:42 AM