But it is not a malapropism to say that a poorly written contract is not worth the paper on which it is written. If the contract does not specify what was meant, the parties can argue. This is ironic, as one of the main reasons for a written contract is to avoid any dispute over what you have agreed. In addition, under those provisions, a standard concept must be drafted in simple and comprehensible language. When in doubt as to what a term means, it is the most favorable meaning for the consumer. If a clause is ambiguous, the courts will endeavor to interpret the contract in such a way that the presumed will of the parties gives effect. You will wonder what an objective third party – the innocent spectator – would mean by treaty. The starting point is the ordinary meaning of the words in the agreement. In interpreting a contract, a court will generally not take any account outside of the written terms, but it will take into account the actual context at the time of the conclusion of the contract. When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sent me fifteen years later to Oslo to repair the draft Declaration of Principles (DOP) that had been secretly developed there by PLO representatives and two Israeli academics, I was faced with the same dilemma. The DOP project was full of problems, including that the document did not reflect the agreements that the two academics had made with the Palestinians. I liked what the PLO representatives would have agreed, but I found the agreed draft DOP totally deficient.
I didn`t know why there was such a big gap between the text in the draft and what academics told me the PLO agreed. Was the rift due to misunderstandings between the two sides in Oslo, so what the Israelis thought was agreed upon was not really accepted by the Palestinians? Or did the Palestinians play Israelis “bait and switches” by promising heaven in oral talks and then maneuvering their Israeli counterparts to accept a completely different text? “A Washington Post study says that women have better verbal skills than men. I would just like to say to the authors of this study, “Duh.” How do you do it? First of all, you need to prove orally what happened and how the agreement between the parties to the agreement was. The contractual conditions should be indicated and the agreement between the parties should be underlined. Rule 2: It is never advisable to conclude an agreement whose compliance is doubtful, especially with weak parties. In a strange way, any premature attempt by a third party, such as for example. B of an American, obliges the parties to move their relations from informal, non-binding cooperation on the basis of unenforceable, oral and secret agreements, to a binding written agreement that must be solemnly signed, can backfire. In the best case, such a measure, if successful, can lead to a much closer degree of cooperation, which is included in the public agreement.
In the worst case, it can lead to confrontation, the strengthening of opposition forces and an outbreak of violence that can “kill” the secret cooperation that works well. It was Samuel Goldwyn who said that an oral contract was not worth the paper on which it is written. In fact, the law has no problem with oral contracts; in most cases, it is not necessary for a contract to be concluded in writing.