Karen (Notary)
unread,Dec 8, 2009, 5:11:41 PM12/8/09Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Freedom Notary Referral
These sections are from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William
Herbert Page.
The key phrase is in the second section, but what these sections tell
us is that if we follow the administrative process through and respond
timely to all presentments, the original contract (whether it be a
Promissory Note/Trust Deed or an implied contract initiated by a
letter from a debt collector or the IRS) cannot be restored. If you
are implementing a process, DON'T GIVE UP!
Sec. 2578. Provision Both Covenant And Condition - Condition As To
Effect Of Breach
Among the causes for confusion between conditions in covenants, is the
fact that the same provision of a contract may be both at once. It is
possible and not uncommon for the parties to agree that one of them
shall act or forbear to act in a certain specified way, and also to
agree in express terms that the consequences of the failure of such
party to perform shall discharge the adversary party from liability,
either as to certain specified covenants of the contract or as to the
entire contract. Such a condition differs from ordinary breach of
executory covenants in that the relationship of the covenants and the
materiality of the breach are important if they are merely covenants,
but immaterial if they are also conditions. Such a condition also
differs from the ordinary covenant in that in case of the condition,
the consequences of breach are frequently agreed upon by the parties,
and may be less than the discharge of the contract; while in case of
breach, the consequences are fixed by law, and in case of breach of a
vital covenant, either precedent or concurrent, the consequence is
ordinarily the discharge of the contract.
Sec. 3118. Effect Of Subsequent Restoration Of Contract To Original
Form
Assuming the correctness of the rule that a material alteration
operates as a discharge of the contract, it should follow that if a
material alteration has once been made and if the written contract has
been discharged thereby, the subsequent erasure of such alteration and
the restoration of the altered contract to its original condition
should not revive the liability upon the original contract against a
party who did not assent to such alteration and who does not assent to
the restoration of the contract to its original condition. This view
has been taken in most jurisdictions; and the restoration of the
altered contract to its original condition does not make it
enforceable against a party who is discharged by such alteration and
who has not assented subsequently, either to such alteration or to
such restoration. Equity will, therefore, not decree the restoration
of the altered instrument to its original form. If the original
alteration was made fraudulently, and if, as a result thereof,
liability upon the original contract is discharged, and no quasi-
contractual right arises upon the original consideration, the
unauthorized erasure of the alteration and restoration of the altered
contract to its original condition does not revive the original
liability, either on the contract or in quasi-contract. If the party
against whom it is sought, to enforce the contract after restoration
did not receive the original consideration, as in the case of a
surety, and if his liability rested solely upon the original contract,
the courts hold that his liability can not revive by the restoration
of the altered contract to its original condition. A note is avoided
by the addition of "with interest," even if erased before transfer to
a bona fide holder.