Interpretation of a sentence in a legal document

Shri Prasad

Dear Sir

You're absolutely precise.

I'd like to mention two sentences.

1. He's gone.      2. He's gone.

No difference?

1. He has gone.      2. He is gone.

In the first sentence just above, the gone is a PAST PARTICIPLE.

In the second, the gone is an ADJECTIVE.

But has and is have the same form of contraction.

Would and had also have one form of contraction, 'd.

Gone can be an adjective but come can't be.

There's been power failure here.    Hence I posted my above Reply without finishing it.

In your sentence, terminated acted as an adjective and a verb       ( past tense ).

But observe the following sentences:

1.  It's complete.     2.  It's completed.

Here complete can't be a verb while completed can't be an adjective.

Is and has have the same form of contraction, 's.    But 's, as a contraction of has, is not possible in both the above two sentences.

It's gladdening, Dear Sir, you've raised a grammatical point in a forum where legal points are appropriate.

Though it's impossible even for a pundit to write without grammatical errors, even advocates are to keep grammar in mind.

Advocates are, after all, graduates and post graduates.

I don't have any degree.

I beg the pardon of the Hon'ble Members if I've vexed them with this long reply.  

 Agree with TGK Reddy's clear interpretation.  Both sentences mean the same  and that is " that there is NO MORE contract.

The contract is terminated.     The contract is hereby terminated.

I don't think both the above sentences mean the same.

Both the sentences are in passive voice.     Passive voice is used where there's no importance for subject.    There doesn't appear any importance in the first whereas,in the second, there does.

Now I've changed my opinion.   Terminated in both the sentences is past participle.      It's neither an adjective nor a verb.

It's complete.       It's completed.

The first complete is an adjective; the second a past participle.

I've gone.        I'm gone.

The above sentences don't mean the same.

The first gone is a past participle while the second is an adjective.

I'm come is not possible.

Come can't play the role of an adjective as gone.

Great work TGK REDDY, but active voice and passive voice would have been much better as illustrations.

Contract is terminated - This can be viewed and interpreted in two ways.

1. Considering 'terminated' as an adjective. Here it just conveys the status of contract, as if it is not in force and got terminated. Very similar to, contract is good, contract is not valid or contract is executed. It just conveys what is the status of contract. Simple present tense and active voice.

2.Second way of interpretation. terminated being used as verb, known as past particple. Used in passive voice. As Mr TGK has explained. This is a passive voice to simple present tense. To be more meaningful I add a few words here. The contract is terminated by the vendor. This sentence is a little ambiguous as it does not convery when. The active voice to this sentence - The vendor terminates contract. This does not by itself would not convey a precise meaning. Normally this type of usage we can see in media, like a news article Heading. Then the column in media explains what has happened.

A healthy discussion is going on.    All the participants are improving their knowledge.

It is terminated.    An adjective can be placed before and after a noun.

A black cat. ( Before ).

Situations vacant.     The village proper.  ( After ).

It can be placed after a verb also.

Situations are vacant.    Adjective.

He's terminated.     My conscience doesn't allow me to take this as an adjective.      He's a terminated person.    Adjective.

Change in the position changed parts of speech above.

He left in the late afternoon.  ( late, adjective.   Modifying afternoon).

He left late in the afternoon.  ( late, adverb.   Modifying left ).

Position changed the roles of late.

LATELY is also an adverb but with different meaning.

Have you been to Oxford lately?   lately means recently.

To remove any confusions, here we are not interpreting a statue but a words, and meaning of the words should be drawn from the accompanying words, as birds of the same feathers flocked together. Thus, no one can precisely interprate the words "Terminated" and "Hereby Terminated". However, common sense reflects the two words in the sentence as Contract being Terminated, as it clearly shows a completed action in the past, and not contemplated or a future contemplated or present ongoing actions.At times interpretation of words can be very deceptives in interprating a contract, and in such case the meaning of the words had to be gathered from the context and not the words alone. In a very interesting Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Judgment was passed base on Finite, Non Finite, and Gerund, which makes me realized the importance of Grammar in the professions both for the Bench and the Bar. Thanks to experts for sharing your interesting and meaningful views on the subject.

Here is the scenario. The contract condition 2.2 says "either purchaser or the vendor may rescind this contract by written notice to the other party if xxx has not happened by 01 Jan 2018.

The vendor has given a notice purporting to the contract cancellation. I am trying to find if the notice is defective. Notice reads like this.

'We hereby give you notice that the contract is terminated pursuant to condition 2.2 of the contract".

I interpret entire scanario as below. As per the contract condition the Vendor may rescind contract by written notice. This is nothing but the contract comes to an end by excercising the right of termination. The vendor has to excercise this right by notice. The contract does not come to an end on its own by operation of condition. So long as the option is excercised the contract is in force.

The notice given conveys a different meaning. It assumes that the contract came to end by itself. The HEREBY in the notice applies or governs 'give you notice' only. The contract is terminated in the second part is nothing but explaining the state/status of contract, which stands as "terminated". 

Contract Conditions 2.2 sounds like a contingent agreement, that is if XXX has not happened on 01 Jan 2018.. Such contingent agreement can not be enforced by one party only unless the said event had happened. Thus, only on the happening or non happening of the conditions specified in 2.2, the right to act upon the agreement will arise, that is to rescind the contract.

Dear Prasad

I have  a slightly different opnion in the sense that when you say that "'We hereby give you notice that the contract is terminated pursuant to condition 2.2 of the contract". Last phrase has the interpretaion that notice must follow the non-fulfilment of condition as per clause 2.2. Both these have to be read in conjunction to each other.

Regards

Ashish