Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

"After three months"

"After three months"

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:19 pm

If an agreement says that something must happen after three months (or some other time period) then is there any actual obligation to make it happen?
Can the other party not simply postpone it until some date in the future: it would still be after three months...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: "After three months"

Postby atticus » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:05 pm

Can you give an example of the actual wording? The full sentence or clause, please.

I can see at least two alternative meanings; but it is not a phrase I would use in drafting.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: "After three months"

Postby dls » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:24 am

The words 'must' and 'happen' do not swim synchro.

'Happen' does not suggest tat aomeone is in charge of the event, and must suggests the opposite.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12515
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: "After three months"

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:40 am

atticus wrote:Can you give an example of the actual wording? The full sentence or clause, please.

I could give an example, but for the actual sentence in question, I will have to get back to you.

I can see at least two alternative meanings; but it is not a phrase I would use in drafting.

I have the benefit of hindsight, but there is a lot in this document that I would not have used.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: "After three months"

Postby SPQR49 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:21 am

Reminds me of the Karen Oltmann case [1976]. Time Charter(two years). Charterers wanted option to walk away in the second year due to market instability. Owners agreed, and the lawyers drafted the following “Charterers to have the option to redeliver the vessel after 12 months’ trading subject to giving three months’ notice".

Year 1 rolls around. Year 2... in May - Charterers purport to exercise the option stating redelivery will take place three months later. Owners say, what are you talking about, that option lapsed 31/12 i.e. at the point of 12 months trading, you're out of time. Charterers say No after 12 months means any time after...

This ambiguity was missed. Literally, grammatically, both parties` interpretations were correct.

Kerr J in contravention of the exclusionary rule admitted into evidence pre-contractual negotiations, a decision which was later criticised in Persimmon v Chartbrook [HL 2009].
SPQR49
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:00 am


Return to Contract and Consumer Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest