However, the reference to one or more non-annexed documents may give rise to a number of potential risk areas, of which there is a likelihood of confusion as to the operational conditions of the agreement. In addition, it is possible that the reference to an un annexed document unnecessarily complicates the interpretation of the scope of the agreement instead of tightening matters. A provision may be incorporated into a contract by reference to another contract or document if there is an explicit or tacit agreement to that effect, provided that the provision is not contrary to the contract in which it would have been incorporated. If you are concerned about the specificity of a cross-reference without such a suffix, you should include a clause in the interpretative article, as David Munn drew my attention to an interesting case on how to incorporate provisions in another document into an agreement. Some types of agreements may also have specific documentation requirements that are not met if other documents are returned in the main agreement or in the contract, but are not annexed. It is quite common for the parties to record the essence of their contract in a document and that document refers to a number of conditions, such as. B the standard form of a trade association or the standard terms of one of the parties. However, the creation must be the subject of an explicit or tacit agreement, and a communication that purports to accept an offer does not contain conditions as set out in a contractual note if they derogate from the conditions of the offer. The approach can also be used to incorporate the terms of another contract related to the transaction. This approach allows the parties to try to streamline or simplify the main part of the primary agreement and, at first glance, this approach may seem attractive. Within minutes of the search, I found a relevant 2d note from American Law Reports (41 A.L.R.2d 872), which describes a similar case, Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v.C.S.T., Ltd., 174 p.2d 441 (Cal.

1946). In this case, the contract has been subject to the published rules of the association. The court decided as follows: “The fact that the parties have agreed to be bound by the rules published by the association does not change the result if, as here, there is no explicit inclusion of certain rules in the contract. The general reference in the contract to the rules published by the association does not constitute such a creation. BAE then relied on the terms of both agreements to terminate the license agreement with Northrop. Northrop initiated proceedings against BAE in Part 8 and requested, among other things, that BAE did not have the right to terminate the license agreement. One of the disputes was the meaning of the term “regulated by” in the licence agreement. Ramsey J considered that if the terms of one agreement “govern” another agreement (the relevant agreement), they will be included in that other agreement. In addition, the terms of the relevant agreement govern or govern the other agreement and generally take precedence over its terms. .

. .