QUESTION
If a contract revocation is deemed illegal, wouldn't a release that ensued be null and void?
Asked on Nov 12th, 2014 on Litigation - Michigan
7 ANSWERS
Personal Injury Attorney serving Charlotte, NC
at
Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A.
Update Your Profile
I think you will find a release is a release is a release. A rose is a rose is a rose.
Answered on Aug 31st, 2015 at 8:43 PM
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Attorney serving Syracuse, NY
at
Andrew T. Velonis, P.C.
Update Your Profile
No, because a revocation is unilateral, whereas a release issues from the party surrendering its rights.
Answered on Nov 25th, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Ronald A. Steinberg
Not enough information.
Answered on Nov 25th, 2014 at 2:28 AM
I do not understand the circumstances; you need to give more details. ?If the contract was initially revoked, why would there be a release? If the contract is held to be binding, there would only be a release if the parties agree not to fulfill the contract.
Answered on Nov 24th, 2014 at 5:28 PM
Thomas Edward Gates
It depends upon the terms of the contract.
Answered on Nov 24th, 2014 at 5:27 PM
Bankruptcy Attorney serving Madison, WI
at
Richard B. Jacobson & Associates, LLC
Update Your Profile
Any answer to this question must be highly fact-dependent. On the one hand, a release could have much the same effect as the revocation. It depends upon lots of history which you have not provided. As to the revocation, do you mean that was held to be 'illegal,' or simply 'unenforceable?'
Answered on Nov 24th, 2014 at 5:26 PM
Appellate Attorney serving Grosse Pointe Farms, MI
at
Musilli Brennan Associates, PLLC
Update Your Profile
A contract revocation is generally one indicia of a breach, either in fact or in anticipation, of the contract itself. It gives rise to a dispute which a later entered into release resolves. They are two extremely different areas of jurisprudence.
Answered on Nov 24th, 2014 at 9:43 AM