confidentiality agreements and capacity to respond
I have been involved in an employment tribunal. I have a couple of queries, there is a cross over with charity law, I say crossover because parts of my pleadings were related to charity law, but the court would not look behind or take in to acount charitable trust matters. There is a case here (cant post link but Affleck @ Anor v Newcastle mind & ors)which shows they had at least stated that only members could have involvement in that case. I suppose my query regarding that is why won't the court look into one sides legal standing or ability to represent itself. i.e. Tescos cant be a defendant/respondent for Sainsbury's, just because they have accepted and responded to the claim.
second query is if having signed a confidentiality agreement, and come to an agreement, coming out of that agreement would be a breach of contract, if the other side did not have the legal power to grant what it had offered, is that a good reason for breach of contract
I suggest that you get the point clarified with the other party before you sign an agreement with them. Obtain confirmation that the person signing has full authority to do so.
And do not sign an agreement unless you fully understand and agree its terms: if in doubt do not sign until you have taken advice.
@activist thanks, advice was to me, (during without prejudice discussion at a court before signing) I was told if I went against the agreement, it would be a breach of contract that could be brought up if I sought to go against what was agreed, but if after signing I learn other signatory didn't have power to offer what was offered?
You need a clear distinction between the other party and that party's representative. 'have involvement with' is a phrase which is causing you confusion.
A representative may be able to do things on behalf of an organisation which the same person, as a member, could not.
You reached an agreement. If they have perfomed their side of the agreement, you are bound by your promise.
@dls thanks. Regarding your last paragraph, when would I not be bound.What if they could perform it but it would leave me, say for instance as a trespasser, when that was not the purpose of the agreement.
If the agreement is clearly and unambiguously expressed, then any purpose has been replaced by that meaning. The parties have expressed their purpose in the words.
@dls I meant if they could not perform it. if they have no legal right to offer what they expressed to have a legal right to offer.i.e. I will give you the red car registration zxy and you must except the red car reg zxy.
say the car is stolen or owned by another
I will give you the red car
is ambiguous. Does 'give' mean hand over or transfer title to.
the OP could provide for the agreement to contain a warranty by the other party that it has the unfettered right power title and authority to do whatever it is doing under the agreement.
@dls couldn't edit last post for some reason, but I meant to say Im not allowed to talk about it
@activist I have asked (after signing) if they have the power to offer, and I have not accepted any funds yet.
why are you asking all these questions after signing when you appear not to have done before?
@activistThe judge said try and sort it out first between yourselves, heat of the moment, advisors running back and fourth with various offers, later remembering my assertions that the 'witnesses' are passing off.Having read acas settlement guidance (cant seem to place link here) seems I was not told should have ten day to think over, wasn't told about that. Dont want to end up vis a vis.
I cannot conceive that anyone wants you to end up vis a vis.