11.3 The supplier`s liability under this contract may not exceed EUR 2,000,000 under any circumstances. Long-time Fans of Ruminations know how often we insert the need to read an entire chord in the „context.“ This is especially important if you intend to „cancel“ anything that might contain the agreement. Context is always important, and there is no clearer example than if we write „just the opposite.“ This is the basis for a third reason why both courts ruled in favour of the tenant. With the words of the Court of Appeal: What will you do next time you see? You could smile because you know its definition. Better yet, you could use it yourself. If one clause in a contract stipulates that one customer can terminate the contract at any time without penalty and another says there will be a $100 fine despite the opposite, how do you interpret that? Whenever a lawyer is tempted to include a clause „despite everything“ in an agreement, he should resign and figure out how to take stock correctly, once and in a way that every reader (i.e. the court) will understand. And if the lawyer still cannot resist the temptation, he should at least make it clear what „here“ means. An interesting detail of the same example is whether, even after such compensation (more than two million euros), the supplier will be subject to liability to the customer: While Section 12.5 operates independently of Section 11.3, the latter section appears to have liability under Section 12.5. Some might say that lawyers should not draft a contract with a punitive sentence. There are many ways to write this sentence, regardless of the opposite, to mean the same thing or something like: here is an example of the sentence, notwithstanding the opposite, used in a treatise: Best Practice – lex specialis.
Consider not using despite the endmierohne. Often, a draughtsman uses, regardless of a contrary means, to protect a significant provision of a contradictory provision, regardless of the destination. In many cases despite the dismissal is redundant. As on the other hand, it would be difficult for one party to argue that a clause inserted notwithstanding another provision should not, despite its clear wording, serve as a derogation or restriction to the other provision. The argument would be that a given rule takes precedence over a general principle (lex specialis derogat legi generali). Whatever the opposite, it means „despite what has been said before.“ Using the phrase, despite other provisions to the contrary or other provisions, can help you adapt certain contractual rights and obligations without changing other areas of the contract. In another example, this restriction (or rather: carve-out) works a little differently: the use of non-compliance can lead to ambiguities (involuntary); where a third clause of the contract relates to a section which is itself subject to another clause which, notwithstanding, is used: in this case, it cannot be certain that the existing clause (i.e. in which the reference was made independently of the reference) is covered by such a third clause. The court ruled for the mining company and concluded that „entering“ applies only to sales of production royalties. The court noted that the „disgruntled“ penalty appeared in the middle of a long paragraph on production costs. This is not a separate paragraph elsewhere in the agreement: „If the provision provides for a minimum payment due each year on the anniversary of entry into force, it would be expected to be set separately.“ Id. at 473.
the placement of the sentence, in the middle [of the heel] according to the price per tonne of calculations that are extracted for the proceeds of the property indicates that the language refers to these payment calculations, and the „all „.