The point where I think it`s worth sticking to this sentence is where a promise might be unenforceable – not illegal, so the promise broke the law, just unenforceable, so the promise wants out. In these circumstances, limiting the promise to what is permitted by law could limit the obligation sufficiently to prevent the undertaking from being unenforceable. So you can do better than to the extent prohibited by law. In the discussion of German law, it is often argued that a legal construction is not applicable because the law does not establish its existence – even if the law does not explicitly state that the construction does not exist. Secondary possession, which is denied by German courts, is an example of this on the grounds that Article 868 of the Civil Code, which defines indirect possession, does not stipulate that two persons may possess. Article 2.1 GG of the German Basic Constitution protects the general freedom of action, as shown by the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court “Reiten im Walde” (BVerfGE 80, 137). [5] The law does vary here, particularly with regard to the guarantees that can and cannot be declared. There is also concern about the exclusion of damages, particularly in situations where circumstances require courts to seek grounds for liability. Ken Adams is the main authority when it comes to clearly stating everything you want to say in a contract. He is the author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting and offers online and classroom training worldwide.
He is also Chief Content Officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to help review contracts. That`s what I said when I first posted this: “So, if the circumstances are such that the benefit could be found illegal, it would be wise to take the stake, except to the extent prohibited by law, to reduce the likelihood that you will find someone being prosecuted claiming to be an innocent plaintiff.” But after sleeping on it, I changed my mind, with the help of Daniel Guidotti`s commentary. If an applicant with a disability requires accommodation (e.g., sign language interpreter) to apply for a job, the employer is required to provide the accommodation, provided the accommodation does not cause significant hardship or cost. Harassment can take the form of insults, graffiti, abusive or derogatory comments, or other verbal or physical behaviour. Sexual harassment (including unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favours and other behaviour of a sexual nature) is also illegal. While the law does not prohibit mere teasing, casual comments or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment, or if it leads to an unfavourable employment decision (for example, if the victim is dismissed or demoted). The courts have applied this standard to different parts of the criminal procedure. California Dep`t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995) takes the Beazell standard and applies it to the probation process. In Morales, California amended a law stipulating that the California Board of Prison Terms can postpone probation hearings for up to three years for a prisoner convicted of more than one homicide offense. The defendant Morales was imprisoned before the law was changed, and he was then assigned when he requested a probation hearing.
In his complaint, he claimed that the amendment violated the retroactive ban. The Supreme Court ruled in Beazell`s application that a change affecting a person currently imprisoned in a law does not violate retrospectively if the change does not increase the sentence for the defendant`s crime. The court found that the change in this case had no impact on Morales` sentence or on a substantial attempt to obtain parole. The court found that a simple change in the procedure for obtaining an inmate`s parole does not violate retroactive prohibitions. In general, I believe that such wording is superfluous and should be avoided. Many states have passed laws that invalidate contracts or regulations that violate state law. In my experience, state laws are a valuable (and often overlooked) source in litigation or contract interpretation.