HitchHiker71
Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2018
- Messages
- 4,214
- Reaction score
- 3,721
- Points
- 549
- Location
- The First State
- Resorts Owned
-
Outer Banks Beach Club I (PIC Plus)
Colonies at Williamsburg (PIC Plus)
CWA VIP Gold (718k EY)
National Harbor Resale (689k)
The sentence reads Wyndham or its successors. "Or" is used as a conjunctive adverb meaning both Wyndham and successors are different entities. Wyndham is singular and successors is plural.
The word " and" instead of "or" could mean corporate successors but they used "or" meaning at least two groups, Wyndham or its successors.
In a contract "or" describes this or that. In a contract "and" describes both this and that.
Bill
I don't want to argue, but I disagree. Wyndham is not a singular reference from the perspective of the legal definition. Here's the definition of Singular Successor that you posted:
Singular successor. A term borrowed from the civil law, denoting a person who succeeds to the rights of a former owner in a single article of property, (as by purchase,) as distinguished from a universal successor, who succeeds to all the rights and powers of a former owner, as in the case of a bankrupt or intestate estate
Is Wyndham a person? No. Since Wyndham is in fact a corporation, by definition it's not possible that it's a Singular Successor. Wyndham is a Corporation, which by definition means it's a Corporate Successor. That is embedded in the context. The use of "or" is almost universal with respect to succession IME. I've never seen the use of "and" in all my years of contract review with respect to Corporate Succession. Reason being, "and" requires both entities to exist. So if Wyndham terminated their incorporation after being subsumed by another entity, the fact that Wyndham corporation no longer exists, would mean that both entities would have to exist in order for the contractual verbiage to apply. Easy to skirt that outcome - simply eliminate one of the two entities right? The use of "or" negates this possibility, as it would apply to either entity - and with respect to the successor entity - it is plural - meaning it would apply to multiple succession entities - which itself eliminates the possibility of negating the class action by enacting multiple divestitures via multiple succession entities.
Last edited: