The Court dismissed the appeal and ruled in Royal Mail`s favour that the wording of the clause in question, in order to reach an agreement contrary to the meaning of S. 36C (1), had to objectively mean that «the parties intended that the contract would not enter into force as agreed with the agent.» Today, a treaty is simply a legally binding agreement. Nothing but a legally binding agreement. As long as one party is satisfied with the arrangement, the other is sticking to it. This is despite the agreements of collaboration being reached prior to the implementation of the programme. According to the Bank, the term «contrary contract» in section 106 of the Act cannot be construed as leaving the parties free to enter into explicit provisions of the law and therefore not to abstain from their true intent. Whenever a lawyer is tempted to include a clause «despite everything» in an agreement, he should resign and figure out how to take stock correctly, once and in a way that every reader (i.e. the court) will understand. And if the lawyer still cannot resist the temptation, he should at least make it clear what «here» means. In 2016, the mining company exercised its right to abandon ownership and the agreement. The landowner complained of minimum production charges for the short duration of the agreement. The landowner argued that the «provocative» language in the middle of the sale of production royalties required the mining company to pay at least $75,000 per year, whether or not it was undermining the country, i.e. the annual catch-up language meant that if the mining company did not have a mining operation in a year and the mining company paid zero production royalties , it would need another $75,000 a year.
In a paragraph of the payment agreement, the mining company agreed to pay production royalties based on the amount of material it obtained. In the paragraph that covered the licence fee, it stated, «Notwithstanding the contrary provisions of this section, the tenant pays the landlord a minimum annual licence of $75,000.» Id. at 472. The paragraph adds that the mining company would make a catch-up payment at the end of the year if royalties fell below $75,000 in any given year. The court ruled for the mining company and concluded that «entering» applies only to sales of production royalties. The court noted that the «disgruntled» penalty appeared in the middle of a long paragraph on production costs. This is not a separate paragraph elsewhere in the agreement: «If the provision provides for a minimum payment due each year on the anniversary of entry into force, it would be expected to be set separately.» Id. at 473. The dispute boils down to the phrase that began «notwithstanding all the contrary provisions,» falling in the middle of the paragraph on production royalties.