Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8914126" data-attributes="member: 7023840">No. Severance clauses (in the United States) arose because of the difficulty in determining how a court would rule on a particular contract. This is a classic example-In the alternative, the Government urges that the half-savings clauses are severable, and that if the contracts imposed upon Bethlehem no obligation of special effort to effect savings, these clauses were unsupported by consideration, and are therefore unenforceable. The Master and the courts below, however, treated these clauses as non-severable; to do otherwise would call for departure from accepted principles of the law of contract. Whether a number of promises constitute one contract or more than one is to be determined by inquiring "whether the parties assented to all the promises as a single whole, so that there would have been no bargain whatever, if any promise or set of promises were struck out." Williston on Contracts (rev. ed.) § 863 and cases there cited. The record makes it clear that each of the contracts here was assented to as a single whole, and that consummation of a bargain between the parties depended upon inclusion of the half-savings clause. Furthermore, we know of no federal or state statute or established rule of law in any jurisdiction inconsistent with the elementary proposition that a promise to build ships is good consideration for a promise to pay a sum of money whether fixed in amount or depending upon the relationship between actual and estimated cost.United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 315 US 289, 298-99 (1942)cf.I agree that the consummation of the bargain depended upon the inclusion of this "savings" clause and that in each instance there was but one contract, not several. My view, however, is that each contract was divisible or severable. ". . . the essential feature of such a contract is that a portion of the price is by the terms of the agreement set off against a portion of the performance and made payable for that portion, so that when an apportioned part of the performance has been rendered a debt for that part immediately arises." Williston on Contracts, § 861 (Rev. Ed.). In other words, the whole performance of each contract was divided "into two sets of partial performances, each part of each set being the agreed exchange for a corresponding part of the set of performances to be rendered by the other promisor." Id., § 860A. (1) The promise of the Fleet Corporation to pay the actual cost plus the fixed fee was exchanged for Bethlehem's undertaking to construct the ships. (2) The promise of the Fleet Corporation to pay one-half the amount by which the actual cost fell short of the estimated cost was exchanged for Bethlehem's promise (which is implied) to effect the savings by increasing efficiency.United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 315 US 289, 338-39 (1942) (Douglas, J. dissenting).Loosely translated, you just had two really smart justices (Black wrote for the majority) disagreeing about a basic feature of a contract- whether it was severable. Whether the entire contract was void or not. So the reason you see severance clauses is to avoid this exact issue; you know ahead of time whether or not the contract is void or if it will continue even if certain provisions are invalid. That's why severance clauses (along with merger clauses) are the most common features of almost all contracts. To reduce uncertainty.Now that this is clear, why don't you explain to me exactly how you foresee a class action being brought with this license?</blockquote>

Verification