Specific Performance Confidentiality Agreement

In addition, under section 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court of England and Wales is free to award damages to an applicant in lieu of a specific benefit (or injunction). As a general rule, such damages are assessed on the same basis as damages for infringement, i.e. to enable the claimant to commit himself in the event of performance of the contract. Finally, most jurisdictions have chosen a middle way: allowing the inclusion of a fair relief clause in order to create a presumption of irreparable harm, but not to reject the clause entirely, as the federal courts tend to do. Instead, most courts consider the agreement between the parties to independently determine whether there has been irreparable harm. The last part of the clause should state exactly what the parties are asking of the Tribunal with respect to irreparable damages and fair legal protection, and it should reflect as accurately as possible the actual dynamics between the parties, the court and the agreement. However, it would appear that some U.S. courts are taking a different approach. The case of Martin Marietta Materials Inc.

v. Vulcan Materials Company in 2012 concerned the interpretation and application of a confidentiality agreement containing the above-mentioned terms. In this case, the Delaware State Supreme Court upheld a decision by Chancellor Strine. In the present case, at first instance, according to Chancellor Strine: secondly, only breaches of certain contractual obligations would or could cause irreparable damage, so it is inappropriate to say that irreparable damage could result from a breach of the agreement. For violations of most standard clauses, legal damages and damages to money are sufficient. Only the breach of certain obligations – such as confidentiality or non-competition – could ever cause irreparable harm. This fact that the breach can only cause irreparable damage to certain types of clauses is the reason why there is first and foremost a fair legal protection, unlike financial facilities. Instead of saying that the breach of obligations under the agreement could cause irreparable harm, limit it to the corresponding provisions and obligations. Parties in the middle of a trial will have very little time to prepare enough evidence to show irreparable damage. Therefore, many parties use an „Equitable Relief” clause to signal the parties` intention that certain breaches of the agreement could cause irreparable damage and (b) in the event of such a breach, a court should begin to suspect that the damaging irreparable element is fulfilled.

Not only is correcting these common errors logically useful and for better wording, but if you take the time to change the language, limit the scope, and define certain sections to which the Equitable Relief clause applies, the clause will be less like a copy-paste-boilerplate clause, which could lead a court to give more weight to the clause. In practice, the specific service is most often used to remedy land transactions, for example.B. in the case of sale of land for which the seller refuses to transfer ownership. The reason for this is that the country is unique and there is no other recourse to put the non-injurious party in the same situation if the contract had been respected. . . .

Comments are closed.


  • Brak kategorii