|
|
|
|
|
|
by lucianbr
74 days ago
|
|
|
The guy sent the bank a contract. It was the first contract between them, it wasn't a "new contract" (as opposed to the old one? no such thing), it wasn't a "change" to an existing contract. Why did he need to highlight some terms? How do you mean "change the nature of the agreement", change from what? They didn't have an agreement before this. > because it's no longer a change, it's a new contract that replaces the old one What sophistry is this? Of course it's a change. Most of the contract is the same, it's not like Paypal changes it's business to selling shoes. They do the same things, and the terms are mostly the same, only they make some changes. There's nothing supporting your claim that it's a new contract. > things like price, term, or anything that would change the nature of the overall agreement That's everything in the contract. Which parts of the contract don't affect the nature of the contract? Why are they there? What the hell is "the overall nature"? If a fee for something changes from $1 to $2, as I understand the english language, "the overall nature" of the contract doesn't change. Just a fee. It's a detail. But this is exactly what you list as "material terms". It's all BS. |
|
|
He changed the material terms of the contract so the other parties‘ obligations and rights were substantially different than what they had thought they were in the original version. In the U.S. his actions would have resulted in him being bound by the contract but the other party not being bound.
Doubling the price of a contract is a material term. Basically anything that would make someone change their mind about entering into the contract is material, but price and term are always material by law.
Stuff that isn't normally negotiated isn't material, like jurisdiction for disputes.