11ant
2022-05-13 19:55:22
- #1
according to the lawyer, it is a problem to get out of the contract at all in the event of insolvency,
and it would continue to apply
Yes, that would indeed be a problem otherwise, and yes again, the contract would otherwise continue to apply without termination. The event itself does not trigger termination, and the administrator could otherwise want to insist on its continuation. Likewise, he could probably also contest termination without this clause. Therefore, I consider it very sensible to explicitly include insolvency in the contract among the "important reasons" so that this cannot become contentious.
... in the event of extraordinary termination by the client for which the contractor is responsible, the contractor is only entitled to remuneration for the services rendered by him...
On the other hand, I consider this to be a toothless pious wish in case of doubt, for two reasons: first, because I see insolvency law opposing it. "Only rendered services" as opposed to "also lost profits" yes, the agreed recognition as an important reason probably covers this here. "Only rendered services" in the sense of "immediate full refund of prepaid upcoming service steps" however no, see above: double standards. Secondly, the wording "for which the contractor is responsible" is not "certain." Because insolvency is not necessarily included in that - at least not in the case of a third-party insolvency petition - and from the agreed recognition of insolvency as an important special termination reason alone, in my opinion, this also cannot be deduced here. From my point of view, the termination reason in the case of applying this clause is mutually agreed upon and thus in this sense "arising from both sides" (and justifiable).
Hopefully the nonsense of the dispute between legal laymen will not become even more nonsensical now by adding lawyers - lest someone still has to call "back to topic" on page 140 *LOL*