All counting correspondences should be clearly marked with “unprejudiced and in accordance with the contract” or “Protected under 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.” Any verbal discussion of regulation should also be clearly expressed as such. This allows you to negotiate freely and ensure that all confessions that are made to try to resolve the matter cannot be used against the employer in court or in court if the agreement fails. During the negotiations, care must be taken not to accidentally conclude a binding agreement before the terms of the agreement are concluded. Ensure that all correspondence is handled not only “without prejudice” but also under the title “contract-compliant” until you have approved the final terms of the transaction. The text “in accordance with the contract” is used to indicate that the parties do not provide for agreed terms until an official written document has been signed. The transaction contract should be executed by persons authorized to do so. This is particularly important in the Middle East, as many jurisdictions, including the United Arab Emirates, require the signatory to have explicit powers to implement transaction agreements or, at the very least, to bind the company (for example. B, Article 58.2 of the United Arab Emirates Code of Civil Procedure). Transaction agreements remain important to lawyers and their clients. Settlement of a claim avoids cost, uncertainty and publicity when a dispute is brought before the courts. Nevertheless, the parties must ensure that they only address what they intend to do and avoid the pitfalls that may arise in the development of transaction agreements.
This bulletin recalls the important points to consider when developing transaction agreements and reviewing the most recent case law in this area. This principle is based on an 1884 decision and it seemed that it should be reconsidered in the Supreme Court decision of Rock Advertising v MBW last year. The Court of Appeal had decided that an agreement to pay something you already owe could be a consideration if the creditor thus has a greater chance of payment. However, the Supreme Court (which had ruled the case for another reason) refused to decide whether this type of practical benefit constituted a valid consideration. A transaction contract is considered a valid waiver of legal rights only if all these conditions are met: transaction agreements are particular types of contracts and, since these are disputes already included in the judicial system, the courts have some overview of the content of these agreements (for example. B in the case of comparative offers in the style of Rule 68 discussed below). If, for example, complainants are not able to fully defend their own interests, the courts have a greater interest in the transaction agreement.