This term was discussed in a recent TechRepublic article. The article focuses on the problem of default clauses in contracts, and offers a solution. Basically, the article argues that the default clause is not as necessary as people have been assuming. Instead, it should be used to ensure that the party that has the power to revoke the contract has the power to do so.
The article makes the argument that the default clause should be used to ensure that the party that has the power to revoke the contract has the power to do so.
The default clause is a clause in a contract that is used to ensure that the party that has the power to revoke the contract has the power to do so. In simple terms, the default clause states that the party that has the power to revoke the contract has the power to do so. Basically, it specifies that if the party that has the power to revoke the contract does not have the power to do so, then the contract is null and void.
The default clause is an example of a “cross default” clause. It is an implicit contract between the two parties that is meant to limit the power of the party that has the power to revoke the contract in order to make the other party with the power to do so have the power to do so.
The power to revoke the contract was one of the few areas in the contract that we made explicit. The default clause is another example, and is basically an explicit contract. In the default clause, we made it clear that if the party that has the power to revoke the contract does not have the power to do so, then the contract is null and void.
In order to make the default clause enforceable, we had to make some changes to the contract itself.
We changed the default clause so that if the party that has the power to revoke the contract has no power to do so, then the contract is null and void. This change made that the party that is responsible for the revocation of the contract need only be the party that signed the agreement.
Now we’re all cool with this change, but is this just cosmetic surgery on a contract? Shouldn’t we be able to revoke a contract on its face without having to change the thing itself? In fact, this is one of the reasons why we’re so adamant that contracts be written in plain English. If we want to enforce a contract in plain English, we should be able to revoke a contract without changing the contract itself – it makes the contract so much more readable that way.
Our contract is written in plain English, and we should be able to revoke it without making it less readable. That said, it is still a contract, it has to be enforced, and we should all be able to agree on the rules of the game.
This is a good point. If you want to enforce a contract in plain English, what you don’t want to be is a contract that is written in a way that makes it hard for the parties to get along. The default clause is one way that you can do this. If both parties agree to the terms of the contract, then each party can revoke the default clause at any time.
