We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Contract law fruit of the poisonous tree data license
From an earlier post (at a fast forward level), I wrote:
I’ve already seen four words that seem to me to be mal-intuitive,
inconsistent, and which in some cases seem
to go directly against principles which I believe that I have internalized.
And for which I still have not found a satisfactory explanation. Those words are:
(i) Affidavit of loss, &,quot,copies of
the instrument of transfer signed by the owner&,quot,,.
(ii) Transfer Agreement, a copy of the document
signed by all parties.
What is the difference between the two? As I have always interpreted the “transfer
of an asset” in the AGREEMENT, it seems to me that the person who signed the Agreement
gets two copies. The one that is kept in their
hands, and the one that the other person signs. It is the one that they sign that represents
an enforceable agreement. The other does not
represent an enforceable agreement. All the
agreements that are between legal people are equally binding, irrespective of their source. I am going to try to figure out
which is the legal rule of thumb here. If you can understand the circumstances that will
make that determination.
Now I have come to recognize
these: the mal-intuitive application of the rule of thumb, and a requirement to
correct the rule of thumb to be consistent with principle. Because it seems inconsistent with a
public policy that recognizes the principle.
The principle, after all, is that the other person gets one copy. When I signed that and you signed that, we had
two copies. So far, so good.
But on to the next words that I was surprised by. I knew, when I wrote the earlier post, that I did not fully understand the concepts
of when a communication is “received”. But the
question is not whether the information is received, but whether it is received in
the way that the parties agreed that it was received.
I must have assumed, earlier, that my supposed understanding was sufficient. I have been reading about emails and other communications, and I
have been able to get some handle on that.
But that is the thing about this topic.
No, the question is not whether the communication is
received. It is not “whether an
appeal is timely.” It is whether the
communicator will abide by the terms of the communication.
Why do the TSC receive a copy of the judgment against
them, and why are the TSC deemed to have received the copy of the
summary judgment? If the summary judgment is
not “received” within the time period permitted for taking an appeal, then why
is the notice of entry of judgment sent to them?
That seems to have no meaning to me unless the TSC receive the summary
Here are the two different communications:
1. The notice of entry of judgment, a copy of which the TSC received on July 14th.
2. The notice of execution, a copy of which the TSC received on
What is the difference? One is a receipt of
the notice of entry of judgment, the other is a receipt of a copy of the
notice of execution.
And again the key words in the information are “in the
original.” That means that in the first
transaction (sent on July 14th), it is assumed that the copy is
there, in the second transaction (sent on July 26th), it is assumed that
the copy is there, and in the first transaction (received on July 14th) that
the original is there, and in the second transaction (received on July 26th)
that the original is there.
To be able to deal with this question I need to provide a bit more information.
The TSC filed a motion to substitute themselves as
third party plaintiffs. They filed a motion
to stay a “notify and execute” judgment. The form of the notices are shown in the attachment below. In particular, the notices are printed on the back of the form. I will use the first form (first
notice) and leave out the date and the location of the case in order to concentrate on the
I have already quoted the relevant information from the
first notice. I have also listed the
relevant information from the second notice.
Now for the TSC’s comments. They explain:
Original A (first notice): In other words, the notice is sent to the debtor, and therefore is not received by the debtor until the
Original B (first notice): In other words, the debtor must sign the judgment to
be effective. Because the debtor did not sign it
within a reasonable time, the debtor is deemed to have waived its right to
appeal the order.
Receipt A (first notice): In other words, the debtor must sign the judgment to be
effective.Because the debtor did not sign it within a reasonable time, the
debtor is deemed to have waived its right to appeal the order.
Receipt B (first notice): In other words, the debtor must sign the judgment to be
effective. Because the debtor did not sign it within a reasonable time, the