<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Effective Date&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/07/03/effective-date/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/07/03/effective-date/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sree</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/07/03/effective-date/comment-page-1/#comment-94914</link>
		<dc:creator>Sree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/07/03/effective-time/#comment-94914</guid>
		<description>Although the post is with regard to drafting an Agreement that is not confusing (with regard to defining &quot;Effective Date&quot;), my concern is in regards to contracts that do have this anomaly.

You have mentioned in most of your blogs that &quot;the contract is effective when it was signed, whatever alternative reality the parties elect to reflect in the contract&quot;. If we take that the parties have consensus ad idem, wouldn&#039;t a contract that defines Effective Date also be valid?

In the first example provided above &quot;THIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 4th day of May, 2007 (the “Effective Date”) by and among Acme Holding Corporation, (“Acme”), Astute Advisors LLC (“Contractor”) and Don R. Jones (“Jones”).&quot;, if we presume that the parties signed the Agreement of 30th June, wihout making any change to the date mentioned in the introductory clause, is it not presumed that the parties mutually agree to bind themselves at an earlier date?

Shouldn&#039;t effectiveness be linked with either party&#039;s obligation or right (which begins on an earlier date) rather than the signature date which is the execution or validation of the Agreement?

Contract Law does not mention that an Agreement becomes effective only when signed. Hence, though I agree that the correct practise of drafting would be to make each party&#039;s  intentions clear, I would want more clarification on your statement that &quot;the contract is effective when it was signed, whatever alternative reality the parties elect to reflect in the contract&quot;, which is not what the law states.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although the post is with regard to drafting an Agreement that is not confusing (with regard to defining &#8220;Effective Date&#8221;), my concern is in regards to contracts that do have this anomaly.</p>
<p>You have mentioned in most of your blogs that &#8220;the contract is effective when it was signed, whatever alternative reality the parties elect to reflect in the contract&#8221;. If we take that the parties have consensus ad idem, wouldn&#8217;t a contract that defines Effective Date also be valid?</p>
<p>In the first example provided above &#8220;THIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 4th day of May, 2007 (the “Effective Date”) by and among Acme Holding Corporation, (“Acme”), Astute Advisors LLC (“Contractor”) and Don R. Jones (“Jones”).&#8221;, if we presume that the parties signed the Agreement of 30th June, wihout making any change to the date mentioned in the introductory clause, is it not presumed that the parties mutually agree to bind themselves at an earlier date?</p>
<p>Shouldn&#8217;t effectiveness be linked with either party&#8217;s obligation or right (which begins on an earlier date) rather than the signature date which is the execution or validation of the Agreement?</p>
<p>Contract Law does not mention that an Agreement becomes effective only when signed. Hence, though I agree that the correct practise of drafting would be to make each party&#8217;s  intentions clear, I would want more clarification on your statement that &#8220;the contract is effective when it was signed, whatever alternative reality the parties elect to reflect in the contract&#8221;, which is not what the law states.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AdamsDrafting &#187; Blog Archive &#187; &#8220;Dated for Reference&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/07/03/effective-date/comment-page-1/#comment-49832</link>
		<dc:creator>AdamsDrafting &#187; Blog Archive &#187; &#8220;Dated for Reference&#8221;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/07/03/effective-time/#comment-49832</guid>
		<description>[...] a related discussion, see this post on use of the defined term Effective [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a related discussion, see this post on use of the defined term Effective [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

