If someone created a contract and used the word "Right" as yes, would it give the agreeing party leeway if they try to void, according to a judge?
36-40, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
MistyCee Best Comment
Was the question, "do you agree to to xyz?" Or was there more to it.
Off the top of my head, I can see where, in the course of a discussion about the terms of a contract, multiple things could be discussed, and the "right" might just bemeant as an assent to one thing and not the entire contract.
Without getting into terms or stuff like void, voidable, or estoppel, reliance, etc, it usually boils down to what the judge or jury thinks is reasonable, and I'd say 8 or 9 times out of ten, "right" should be construed as "I agree" though.
BTW, this is a great example of why written contracts are a great idea.
Off the top of my head, I can see where, in the course of a discussion about the terms of a contract, multiple things could be discussed, and the "right" might just bemeant as an assent to one thing and not the entire contract.
Without getting into terms or stuff like void, voidable, or estoppel, reliance, etc, it usually boils down to what the judge or jury thinks is reasonable, and I'd say 8 or 9 times out of ten, "right" should be construed as "I agree" though.
BTW, this is a great example of why written contracts are a great idea.
Thanks for the BC