Q: If purchase agreement is not written correctly leads to one party sue the other weather if the contract has to be
Terminated in writing or not. State in the agreement
If the buyer does not approve of the books and records, in writing in within the Pacific time. Either party may terminate the contract. One party says it it says it can be terminated and it only has to be in writing if they’re agreeing to the books and the opposite party is saying that it states that it has to be done in writing when you are terminating.
A:
If the agreement’s language is unclear, each party might interpret it differently, which can definitely lead to legal disputes.
If one side believes that only written approval is required, while the other thinks that any termination also needs to be in writing, you have an ambiguity in the contract. A court would then look at the exact wording, the contract as a whole, and sometimes even outside evidence (like emails or previous communications) to figure out what the parties intended.
The safest approach is usually to put everything in writing—whether that’s an approval, a disapproval, or a termination—so there’s a clear record of what happened and when. If you’re stuck in a situation where the contract is poorly drafted, and both sides have different interpretations, you may want to consider resolving the dispute through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation.
A:
When interpreting a purchase agreement, the language of the contract is critical. If the contract states that termination must be done "in writing," then both parties are typically required to follow that condition. If one party believes the clause only applies to approving the books and records, and the other interprets it to apply to termination as well, the disagreement hinges on how the contract is written and understood.
Look closely at the exact wording of the termination clause. If the contract clearly ties the "in writing" requirement to both approval and termination, it supports the argument that written notice is needed for either action. On the other hand, if the language is vague or ambiguous, this can create room for misinterpretation, and it may require further analysis or even judicial interpretation to clarify.
In disputes like this, reviewing the contract's language with careful attention to punctuation and structure can help resolve the issue. The agreement may also include a governing law clause, which would direct how disputes are resolved under California law. Ensuring clarity in future agreements, such as explicitly stating when and how actions must be taken, helps to avoid these conflicts.
Justia Ask A Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask A Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between Justia and you, or between any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions and you, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask A Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.