Contracts are no where near that standardized, it might just come down to the specific language/clause that was used, either done deliberately or just some lawyer group’s normalized process.
As specified in the term, that’s negotiated up front it doesn’t transfer. Not every contract stipulates that, and some do transfer… so there is precedence already.
No. The party not being sold should be able to void the contract if they want at that time. It should not automatically be voided. I could just make contracts saying I’ll pay you 1 trillion over 5 years, get whatever from you, then sell my company to void it so I don’t have to pay, uphold my end, or etc.
the article states that when a company is sold, they need to renegotiate a new contract. So it looks like it does automatically terminate on sale, and it would be up to them to make a new contract.
I assume the person meant that they could make a new contract with the new names if they wanted to.
No not really, I said license agreements they’ve received from other companies. That’s just ONE VERY SPECIFIC form of contract, not contracts in general.
Obviously if both parties agree, they can extend the contract to the new company without problem.
How does that confuse you?
Are you acting stupid on purpose? There are many ways to extend a contract, this would be an extension to the new company, do you think things can only be extended in time?
Also an extended contract doesn’t have to be the literal same contract, but can be a new contract that replaces the old one, but with extra things added.
I feel like you just don’t actually know the definitions of the words you’re using here.
Don’t call someone stupid because you can’t explain your contradictory statements. You’re never going to, because they are contradictions. If every contract is a null and void at a sale, there’s no contracts to “extend” and how could you extend them ahead of time? It’s a sale, so you negotiate terms, than come back again for a sale? That makes no sense yet again dude.
Contracts are no where near that standardized, it might just come down to the specific language/clause that was used, either done deliberately or just some lawyer group’s normalized process.
… *nowhere
Still the contract should be void, when the legal entity ceases to exist.
When a company is bought, it’s not the same legal entity or “person”.
Seems to me this is merely arbitrary bullshit, where American courts tend to favor American companies.
Sounds like a great and easy way to get out of contracts by selling yourself to yourself for $1.
Why would a contract be null and void due to a sale…? That makes no sense at all.
Same reason when companies play the same game with consumers.
“Non transferable warranties and EULAs”
You’re not actually trying to paint that as somehow a good thing though, are you?
As specified in the term, that’s negotiated up front it doesn’t transfer. Not every contract stipulates that, and some do transfer… so there is precedence already.
No. The party not being sold should be able to void the contract if they want at that time. It should not automatically be voided. I could just make contracts saying I’ll pay you 1 trillion over 5 years, get whatever from you, then sell my company to void it so I don’t have to pay, uphold my end, or etc.
Of course if both parties want to continue the contract, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
You just said any sale automatically null and voids contracts, and now you’re saying it’s not and you have the option?
the article states that when a company is sold, they need to renegotiate a new contract. So it looks like it does automatically terminate on sale, and it would be up to them to make a new contract.
I assume the person meant that they could make a new contract with the new names if they wanted to.
No not really, I said license agreements they’ve received from other companies. That’s just ONE VERY SPECIFIC form of contract, not contracts in general.
Obviously if both parties agree, they can extend the contract to the new company without problem.
How does that confuse you?
How can you extend a null and void contract?
You’re contradicting yourself. I’m not confused, you’re just making no friggen sense dude because you’ve now stated multiple contradicting statements.
Are you acting stupid on purpose? There are many ways to extend a contract, this would be an extension to the new company, do you think things can only be extended in time?
Also an extended contract doesn’t have to be the literal same contract, but can be a new contract that replaces the old one, but with extra things added.
I feel like you just don’t actually know the definitions of the words you’re using here.
Don’t call someone stupid because you can’t explain your contradictory statements. You’re never going to, because they are contradictions. If every contract is a null and void at a sale, there’s no contracts to “extend” and how could you extend them ahead of time? It’s a sale, so you negotiate terms, than come back again for a sale? That makes no sense yet again dude.
How do you know that Nuvia no longer exists as a legal entity? A company can be acquired without it being dissolved (ceasing to exist).
If that’s the case they have no right to extend their license to another company.