(a) If you use words that have a specific meaning in a meaningless context, you lose the benefit of the exact meaning; and warrants are a derivative that gives the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a security – usually a capital – at a certain price before the end. The price at which the underlying warranty can be purchased or sold is referred to as exercise or exercise price. A U.S. arrest warrant may be issued at any time on or before the expiry date, while European arrest warrants may only be issued on the expiry date. Guarantees that give the right to purchase a warranty are called appeal orders; Those who give the right to sell a warrant are called Put Warrants. It would be equally strange to conclude, as required by restrictive remedies, that a proposed remedy is not available because it is not introduced by the appropriate verb. Yes, for example. B the factual claims of one party are not made by guarantees or guarantees, the other party, according to the logic of restrictive remedies, would have no remedy, regardless of the nature of those statements. It would be difficult to justify it. b) on future commitments – only “commitments” matter; and (c) with respect to testimonies of future facts, both can be used, but there is no point in using the two words. If “bonds” are used, they must be expressed as an obligation, for example. B to ensure that future events occur. It would be preferable to introduce factual assertions with the simplest verb available, namely states.
Other alternatives, such as assertions and affirmations, carry unnecessary rhetorical baggage. The use of the states proposes to use the corresponding nov formulation instead of representation and guarantee. Choosing one remedy over the other could be beneficial. For example, an applicant may prefer to make a claim for misrepresentation on the ground because of a violation, if it provides a longer limitation period or if it seems appropriate to authorize a right to a higher amount of damages, even if the plaintiff has to bear a heavier burden to impose himself. Whether a contractor is in a position to assert a right to misrepresentation or a breach of the guarantee for an inaccurate factual claim by the other party may have significant practical consequences. After justifying the corrective action, an author can ensure that an allegation of fact is treated as insurance, a guarantee or both, by introducing this factual claim with submissions, guarantees or both, or by identifying that statement as insurance, a guarantee or both.