On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote: > We have a couple of interesting questions to resolve about contracts, > in the light of CFJ 1892. Principally, if an agreement is intended to > be a binding contract, but does not in fact impose any obligations of > any kind (including indirect obligations or authorisations of agency), > is it binding? I suggest that it is best treated as binding, despite > the lack of anything that the parties are bound to, as this avoids the > need to decide what qualifies as an obligation.
Yes, I covered contracts that claim to be non-binding, but contain obligations. Contracts that claim to be binding, but contain no obligations are a different kettle of fish and I don't think they've been tested. Perhaps it's simple: the agreement between parties that a binding contract exists should be taken, prima facie, as a binding obligation to acknowledge the existence of the contract. > If, on the other hand, an agreement without obligations is ruled to > be thereby non-binding, we need to decide whether an authorisation of > agency is an obligation for this purpose. Obviously we're in easier > territory if it is, but the theoretical basis for treating it this way > needs to be worked out. I thought that's what my CFJ 1892 argument did (although the judgement didn't hinge on it due to the overriding Clause 1). Or by "authorisation of agency", do you mean something different than granting the ability to act on one's behalf? -Goethe
