This recent question asks the meaning of the following clause in a Mutual Non-Disclose Agreement (MNDA):
The Parties agree that the disclosing Party will suffer irreparable injury if its Confidential Information is made public, released to a third party, or otherwise disclosed in breach of this Agreement and that the disclosing Party shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief against a threatened breach or continuation of any such breach and, in the event of such breach, an award of actual and exemplary damages from any court of competent jurisdiction.
Now, my doubt is what would happen to the MNDA if that clause (and any other else to the same effect) were not in the agreement. It seems to me that "if you breach the contract we may sue you" is pretty much a given for any contract1.
Does this clause have any actual legal effect?
Here I use the "legal" term in a narrow meaning (if the matter goes to court, will it make it a difference the presence of absence of the clause?); I guess that there could be some practical reasons for the clause, like:
if the opposing party is not legally savvy, it serves to remind it that breaching the contract can have penalties.
if the customer notices the absence (for example comparing the agreement with some other agreement), s/he may think that his/her lawyer "forgot" to include it.
it does no harm, so there is no actual reason to make an effort to remove it.
(feel free to tell me of other non-legal motives for the clause).
If jurisdiction is relevant, let's go with that of the original question (Ohio), although it would be nice to know if I could expect a similar situation elsewhere or if it is dependant on the jurisdiction.
1I know that there may be arbitration clauses forcing the parts to submit to a different conflict resolution mechanism; let's just assume the contract does not not have any.