Post dating contracts
It’s often difficult — maybe impossible — to conceive of all the non-parties who could be affected by a transaction, so it’s non unlikely that there will be unintended consequences that won’t be cured by backdating a contract. The Tenant shall, on or before the commencement of each and every Lease Year of the Term, including the first Lease Year, deliver to the Landlord a series of post-dated cheques, one for each month of the Lease Year, drawn for an amount equal to the amount of Monthly Rent and the Additional Rent (as estimated by the Landlord) payable in each month of such Lease Year, provided that the first such payment is to include also any pro-rated Monthly Rent and Additional Rent for the period from the date of the commencement of the Term to the first day of the first full calendar month in the Term, provided further that the obligation in the first Lease Year shall be adjusted to take into account all advance rental paid hereunder.Portions of this Exhibit were omitted and have been filed separately with the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to the Companys application requesting confidential treatment under Rule 406 of the Securities Act.Let’s take a look at the different possibilities, and what you need to know to understand the all-important “when” of an agreement.THIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 4th day of May, 2007 (the “Effective Date”) by and among Acme Holding Corporation, (“Acme”), Astute Advisors LLC (“Contractor”) and Don R. Why inflict an unnecessary defined term on the reader?When a contract is dated by having the parties date their signatures rather than by including a date in the introductory clause (something I discuss in this blog post), one sees to refer to a future date when some or other arrangement kicks in.The appellate court determined two separate issues: (1) whether the FDIC’s June 10, 2009 transaction with Weatherford was effective to retroactively transfer the loan to the FDIC as between the FDIC and Weatherford and (2) whether a retroactive effect applied to the FDIC’s earlier transaction with FH Partners.As to the first issue, the transaction between the FDIC and Weatherford couldn’t have retroactive effect unless the parties showed a clear intent for the transaction to be retroactive.
The facts are a bit complicated, involving circumstances surrounding the failure of a bank and transactions in the bank’s loans preceding the failure as well as transactions of the FDIC as the bank’s receiver.There are any number of contexts where this comes up — some legitimate and others not exactly aboveboard — but the logistics of negotiating and signing contracts are such that the issue is unavoidable.(Jason Mark Anderman illustrates the logistics problem well in this comment to a backdating post on Ken Adams’s blog.) There’s nothing inherently illegal or unethical about backdating contracts, although backdating can certainly be both unethical and illegal, depending on the situation. Fw-300 #ya-qn-sort h2 /* Breadcrumb */ #ya-question-breadcrumb #ya-question-breadcrumb i #ya-question-breadcrumb a #bc .ya-q-full-text, .ya-q-text #ya-question-detail h1 html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] .ya-q-full-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] .ya-q-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] .ya-q-full-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] .ya-q-text html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] #ya-question-detail h1, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] #ya-question-detail h1 #Stencil . Bdend-1g /* Trending Now */ /* Center Rail */ #ya-center-rail .profile-banner-default .ya-ba-title #Stencil . Bgc-lgr #ya-best-answer, #ya-qpage-msg, #ya-question-detail, li.ya-other-answer .tupwrap .comment-text /* Right Rail */ #Stencil . Bxsh-003-prpl #yai-q-answer, #ya-trending, #ya-related-questions h2. Fw-300 .qstn-title #ya-trending-questions-show-more, #ya-related-questions-show-more #ya-trending-questions-more, #ya-related-questions-more /* DMROS */ .
Search for post dating contracts:
We cannot conclude, therefore, that in resolving the inconsistency between the FDIC/Weatherford Agreement and the Termination of Participation Agreements, the trial court erroneously relied on these uncontested facts to find “a lack of mutual assent” with respect to a November 7, 2008 effective date.