2

Here is a simple scenario to explain my question:

A contract is signed in January, this contains non-competes and IP clauses.

A dispute begins around the non-compete and IP clauses in February. However, no legal action is taken and it is simple discussion via email and in person as to how to resolve the dispute.

A new contract is signed in March, mid-dispute. This new contract does not contain the non-competes and IP clauses, and also states:

For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby agreed and declared that all contracts dated before this contract are superseded in their entirety by this contract.

Does this then mean that, even though the dispute began on the previous contract, the dispute is no longer valid as the new contract has 'superseded' the old?

|improve this question
  • 1
    On the face of it, there could only be a dispute about actions taken between Janaury and March. – Tim Lymington Mar 31 '18 at 9:47
  • But if the new contract supersedes the old contract, could legal action still be taken now, for the period of the old contract? – Calco Mar 31 '18 at 9:57
  • "On the face of it", yes. Supersession does not mean eradication. – Tim Lymington Mar 31 '18 at 10:03
  • "A dispute begins around the non-compete and IP clauses in February. However, no legal action is taken and it is simple discussion via email and in person as to how to resolve the dispute." Did the dispute involve an allegation of a a breach involving competition or an IP violation in that time period, or merely a dispute over what the contract should say? – ohwilleke Apr 2 '18 at 2:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.