Showing posts with label agreements. Show all posts
Why doesn't my agreement say [fill in the blank]?
I recently updated by iTunes software and saw the following warning:
"You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." (iTunes EULA: Section 10, Paragraph 8)
Apparently, Apple is worried I am going to use my newest edition of iTunes to manufacture my own MIRV's. (There's an app for THAT?!) I suppose it's possible to figure out a way to launch a first strike from an iPhone (it can do practically everything else), but the likelihood of me trying, or even wanting to is, as we say, de minimus.
A good lawyer will go to great lengths to make sure that his client is protected, but sometimes, we fail to distinguish between "what might possibly happen" and "what will probably happen". A good attorney should not try to insulate you from every abstract contingency; rather, he or she should assist you in identifying risks, then recommend the things you can do to minimize those risks without the need for cumbersome arrangements or worse, confusing and unenforceable agreements. Keeping a legal solution simple and straightforward does not mean leaving you exposed to risk, loss or harm - it means making sure you are protected and still able to improvise, adapt and overcome what life throws at you after your case is complete.
"You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." (iTunes EULA: Section 10, Paragraph 8)
Apparently, Apple is worried I am going to use my newest edition of iTunes to manufacture my own MIRV's. (There's an app for THAT?!) I suppose it's possible to figure out a way to launch a first strike from an iPhone (it can do practically everything else), but the likelihood of me trying, or even wanting to is, as we say, de minimus.
A good lawyer will go to great lengths to make sure that his client is protected, but sometimes, we fail to distinguish between "what might possibly happen" and "what will probably happen". A good attorney should not try to insulate you from every abstract contingency; rather, he or she should assist you in identifying risks, then recommend the things you can do to minimize those risks without the need for cumbersome arrangements or worse, confusing and unenforceable agreements. Keeping a legal solution simple and straightforward does not mean leaving you exposed to risk, loss or harm - it means making sure you are protected and still able to improvise, adapt and overcome what life throws at you after your case is complete.
We agreed to a new Parenting Plan; should we go back to Court?
It is typical for parents to make changes to their parenting plan and visitation schedules as their children age. Indeed, we often refer clients to two resources which suggest that parenting plans need to change as children age to accommodate their different developmental requirements: Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart and the Model Parenting Plans.
In addition, we usually include the following paragraph or something similar in our agreements:
This is intended to provide parents with encouragement to be flexible when life requires it or children's ages require new arrangements.
But, if you enter into such a modification, should you go back to court to have it approved by the court?
According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court in an unpublished decision, if you don't ratify the agreement in writing and have it approved by the court it may not be enforceable. In Benoit v. Benoit the court found that the oral agreement between parents to make changes to the parenting schedule was not sufficient evidence to show a material and significant change in circumstances. The court therefore refused to enter the oral agreement as a new order. If the parties had made the agreement in writing and entered it as an Agreement for Modification, then the Father could have enforced it in court. But since they didn't, the court was not willing on the evidence of an oral agreement alone, to enforce the changes.
In addition, we usually include the following paragraph or something similar in our agreements:
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude both parents from jointly and voluntarily modifying the above-described co-parenting schedule or from reaching agreements for the co-parenting of the children by the parents that are not in conformity with the foregoing co-parenting schedule provided that such modifications and agreements be reduced to a writing in advance and be signed and/or otherwise (e-mail) confirmed and/or otherwise ratified by both parties. Either parent may request a modification of the foregoing parenting schedule from the other parent. Any modification of the parenting schedule shall be requested reasonably in advance, except in emergency situations. The parties shall take into consideration the best interests of the children when discussing exceptions to the parenting schedule.
This is intended to provide parents with encouragement to be flexible when life requires it or children's ages require new arrangements.
But, if you enter into such a modification, should you go back to court to have it approved by the court?
According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court in an unpublished decision, if you don't ratify the agreement in writing and have it approved by the court it may not be enforceable. In Benoit v. Benoit the court found that the oral agreement between parents to make changes to the parenting schedule was not sufficient evidence to show a material and significant change in circumstances. The court therefore refused to enter the oral agreement as a new order. If the parties had made the agreement in writing and entered it as an Agreement for Modification, then the Father could have enforced it in court. But since they didn't, the court was not willing on the evidence of an oral agreement alone, to enforce the changes.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Since the beginning of May, the flow of an emissary of Lake Champlain, the Richelieu River, is near or at record level, and a larg...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Former CFO for R. Allen Stanford, Jim Davis, pleaded guilty to fraud yesterday . This is probably not good news for Proskauer's Tom Sjob...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 April, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable development, Environment and Parks presented a regulation project on pricing of ...
-
(BY HUGO) Just a quick post to follow up on reports relating to shale gas leaks from wells in Québec. The Québec Ministry for Natural Resour...
-
(BY HUGO) Les Cahiers de droit just published their issue 3 & 4, Vol. 51, a special issue on water law with many articles exploring int...
-
Billy Shields has a nice piece on the never-ending saga involving BDO Seidman and the new trial that commenced this week against BDO Intern...
-
Medical marijuana legal in some states, is creating some employment law problems . Seems employees with prescriptions for medicinal use of ...