“Legal” is superfluous. This is where we get to the heart of the matter. It may be (again, most likely) legally useless, but commercial, friendly, coiffed, reassured, etc., it can be very useful to include provisions already in an English translation of a Dutch treaty. “That`s what the (American) client is asking for,” “is not helpful, so it doesn`t hurt,” “at least it seems very complete,” I regularly hear Dutch lawyers say about their English-speaking contracts (where the number of hours calculated is probably not completely out of sight, but outside). What is superfluous in an Anglo-American treaty – so useful, has it already been drawn up in English – if Dutch law applies to this treaty? On this blog, there are no plans to denounce anything that might be considered superfluous. I will limit myself here to the whole clause of the treaty. The entire contractual clause can no longer be ignored by English-speaking contracts under Dutch law. In the first appeal, the Tribunal ruled, in Mypoint/IPG (Amsterdam Court, 14 February 2012, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012: BV7744), that the whole contractual clause is also important in Dutch law when it comes to a trade agreement reached by professional parties assisted by experts in negotiations. Read more: J.W.A.
Dousi, All contract clause according to U.S. and Dutch laws: delimitation, no explanation, contract, contract practice magazine, 2013 issue 4, page 126 – H.N. Schelhaas, Pacta sunt servanda for Handelsvertrag, Niederl-ndisches Zivilgesetzblatt 2008 Nummer 4, Seite 150 – H.N. Schelhaas, Das Haviltex-Kriterium und die Erl-uterung von Handelsvertrag, in der Zeitschriftenvereinbarung in der Rechtspraxis, 2013 Nummer 7, page 35 This square rule is often explicitly included in a contract, as the agreement quite. Meanwhile, the entire agreement clause has caused some legal controversy in the Netherlands – for more information, check out a following blog. It is preferable to write legal documents in terms that have already been used and have already proven their worth in court. This is particularly important in common law countries where judges have much less freedom to interpret laws and treaties: “He says what he says.” See, for example, our discussion of the entire contractual clause of the last few weeks. Most of the texts that lawyers write are intended for other lawyers. In other words, readers will understand what someone is talking about when they speak in terms of technical legality.
No need to write about Plain English. In addition, writing a “difficult” legal text provides lawyers with the opportunity to show how well-informed they are legally.