In another example, this restriction (or rather the carve-out) works a little differently: the language of the sentence provides for “a minimum annual production fee of […]”, not “a minimum annual payment” or even “a minimum annual licence fee”. . It is referred to as “Production Royalty”, which is defined in this paragraph as a royalty for tonnes of sand, stone and rock products extracted in the field. According to its definition, it is therefore not applicable before the start of extraction. And the word “minimum” is not capitalized when used in the definition of payment (unlike the parenthesis, if “Minimum Production Royalty” is called a reference for short). Again, the sentence as a whole is as follows: “Notwithstanding provisions to the contrary, the lessee is entitled to the lessor a minimum annual production tax of […] (the “minimum production tax”). Therefore, the non-capitalized word “minimum” is an adjective to the term “Production Royalty” in the sentence and therefore sets a minimum or lower limit for production royalties in the paragraph. This interpretation is supported by the following sentence, which specifies that if the production royalties do not meet or exceed the minimum production royalty on the anniversary of the entry into force, the difference between the two must be paid, a language that corresponds to the payment, which constitutes a floor for the production licence fees. This is, as the last sentence explicitly states, a “catch-up payment” if production royalties do not meet expectations. The phrase “notwithstanding” can also create another type of confusion, as shown in Pronchinske Trust of March 21, 1995 against Kaw Valley Co., 899 F.2d 470 (7th Cir. 2018). In 2012, a landowner signed a mining lease with a mining company that allowed but did not require the exploitation of different sand, stone and rock products.
The mining company agreed to pay option fees and key money, but did not commit to mining at all. He could give up the property. For example, despite his lack of experience, he took third place. Despite the means to the contrary, this means “despite what has been suggested previously”. In the example below, it is indicated, by way of derogation, the above sentence, which is then limited with regard to the period within which errors must be reported (not monthly, but in good time): let`s look at the typical scenarios or reasons why this phrase can be used in contracts. Long-time Ruminations fans know how often we emphasize the need to read an entire agreement in “context.” This is especially important if you intend to cancel anything else that might contain the agreement. Context is always important, and there is no clearer example than writing “the opposite here.” This is the basis of a third reason why both courts ruled in favor of the tenant. In the words of the Court of Appeal: The second circumstance is, when an additional mini-agreement is reached at the end of the agreement, is usually something that places the duel parties on a bump….