Isn't "not paying money owed" a fairly significant breach of contract? <it is the violation of this non-assert clause, counter to the provisions of the implicitly extended contract, which gives rise to first breach of contract.>
Normally, in contracts I have been involved with, if the party which is supposed to be paying money stops paying, their counter-party starts squealing and calling in the judiciary.
Not paying money is about the most basic breach of contract if continuing to use the thing for which payment is supposed to be made.
I could lease an Airbus 380 on a 20 year deal, then stop paying the lease after a couple of months, but keep flying it with paying passengers. I could post the owners $20,000 a year as the new contract price and they can like it or lump it.
<Nokia's brief indicates that the contract explicitly contained a clause which required an extension to be in writing. >
Being an international legal expert, I can say that if two parties proceed with a course of action in a voluntary exchange of value, then even if they were previously operating on a written agreement which says "any renewal must be in writing", the previous terms continue in force apart from any change agreed as implicit in the continued actions of each.
When one party breaches the terms of the written agreement, and the other party does not agree to the new terms unilaterally asserted by the party breaching the agreement [namely failing to pay money owed and that non-assert stuff], then either the previous contract is enforceable as though continued, or there are damages payable and a cease and desist injunction to be issued.
Also, if one party [in this case Nokia] has breached certain legal operating principles, they lose anyway, namely Nokia has dirty hands and their feet stink.
Mqurice |
