website statistics

Agreement Remains In Full Force

By  | 

The background of this layout is quite simple. The company that introduced this NDA considered hiring my clients to offer a variety of services. Without disclosing the services in question, I am not entirely convinced that an NDA was necessary, but the company wanted the NDA. term. This agreement begins on the reference date and applies in full and enters into force for a period of three (3) years (protection period) during which this agreement expires and does not automatically renew itself, unless the contracting party has denounced the impugned provisions earlier. However, the terms of this agreement apply to the expiry or termination of this agreement and last three (3) years. The receiving party may not disclose, in whole or in part, to third parties the confidential information it has received under this agreement during the three-year protection period, but if the parties enter into one or more succession agreements, such as. B an equipment agreement or sub-contract, in reference to this confidentiality agreement, extends the duration of this confidentiality agreement in the confidentiality agreement or in the follow-up agreement. Unless otherwise stated in the succession agreement, all other conditions of this confidentiality agreement remain unchanged. This sentence annoys me so much, I almost do not know where to start.

Thus, the words “but should” can simply be replaced from the beginning by the conditional “if.” The independent clause, which contains examples of team agreement or sub-contract, is rather a rhetorical success and is not necessary. There is no reason to close the brackets around the letter S, just use the single “inheritance contract”. Write the condition as “if.. then” testimony. Finally, the subsequent agreement must relate to the NDA and, in my experience, they almost never do so and almost always contain their own privacy rules. It is therefore preferable to express the most unlikely scenario that the NOA will continue if the following agreement does not contain an essentially similar confidentiality provision. Idea 3 is that the parties can terminate the contract before the end of three years. There are other editorial issues as well. For example, the agreement cannot have an obligation to do anything that is the meaning of the word “must.” (a real pet peeve on my part). The term “full power and effect” is a rhetorical flowering that is not necessary, as the agreement would not enter into force at any time and would not enter into force. Then, spelling the word three, and then including a number in brackets, is at best superfluous and potentially dangerous if the word and number are not changed at once (it happened and there is jurisprudence on this idea alone).

The first idea is necessary. The second and third ideas are not necessary. Why mention the automatic extension if it is not automatically extended? If the objective is to prevent the disclosure of confidential information for three years and the obligation is to terminate the contract, why deal with a provision in advance? In the rewritten version, the validity of the NDA and the obligation to ensure the security of confidential information is three years from the effective date, unless the parties reach a subsequent agreement.