"The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's earlier ruling on a long-standing trade mark licence, holding that an agreement that was stated to be 'indefinite' could not be interpreted as being a contract that would bind the parties forever."
"A contract that is stated to continue indefinitely must still be capable of being terminated by each party; and for a contract to be upheld as continuing forever, it must be expressly stated to be 'perpetual'."
"Indefinite contracts should be regarded as being terminable by either party on reasonable notice even if such termination rights are not included in the drafting."
"If a contract is intended to last forever, it is vital that the term is described as perpetual to prevent a party from arguing for termination rights."
A recent Court of Appeal decision clarifies that contracts labeled as 'indefinite' are not binding forever. The ruling in Zaha Hadid Limited v Zaha Hadid Foundation indicates that such contracts can be terminated by either party on reasonable notice, even without an express termination clause. For a contract to be considered perpetual, it must be explicitly stated as such. The distinction between 'indefinite' and 'perpetual' is significant in legal terms, as 'indefinite' implies a lack of fixed end but does not preclude termination.
Read at Global IP & Technology Law Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]