Generally it’s the parties’ mutual intent that controls a contract’s interpretation. But that intent isn’t always easy to figure out. When the parties dispute a contract’s interpretation and it goes to court, the court applies certain statutory principles. Don’t wait for a dispute to learn these principles—be aware of them and let them guide you as you draft every agreement.
The following is a guest blog by Alan M. Goldberg of the Law Office of Alan Goldberg. Alan’s practice includes Appeals, Civil Trials, and Family Law. You can follow Alan on Twitter @AlanMGoldberg.
We learn in law school that illegal contracts aren’t enforceable. But that’s not precisely true. Some illegal contracts may be enforced, depending on the “realities of the situation.”
A construction project is like a marriage. As with any marriage, there are inevitably some bumps along the way. If the bumps are too big, one or both sides call their lawyers and file for divorce. Construction law practitioners who find their client in the midst of a construction divorce need to move fast to secure their client’s claim. That’s where a writ of attachment may come into the picture.
In the high-profile divorce of Frank and Jamie McCourt, the ownership of the Dodgers hangs in the balance. Frank put his faith in a marital property agreement that he believed would result in him keeping the team. After a judge’s ruling that the agreement was not valid and enforceable, it’s as if there was never any such agreement and the parties are like any other in California trying to characterize particular property in a divorce. This leaves questions about how this marital agreement failed and how attorneys can avoid their clients’ agreements suffering the same fate.