The principles of treaty interpretation are well known. When the contracting parties « submit their agreement in a clear and complete document, » their intention is « determined from the four corners of the instrument and implemented in its words. » See Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 N.Y.3d 470, 475 (2004); W.W.W. Assoc. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162 (1990). It is not uncommon for contract and statute authors to use the word « notwithstanding » to prioritize other provisions of the document. Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18 (1993) A « defying » clause …
indicates the author`s intention to ensure that the provisions of the « despite » section do not comply with the contrary provisions of another section. As such, the word « despite » is considered a word that « controls any contrary language. » Handlebar, Inc. v. Utica First Ins. Co., 290 A.D.2d 633, 635 (3d Dept. 2002), lv. denied, 98 N.Y.2d 601 (2002); see also Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 917 (2d Cir 2010) (« The Court of Justice has repeatedly recognized that under New York law, clauses similar to the phrase » (n), in spite of any other provision, exceed conflicting contractual clauses »); In re Gulf Oil/Cities Serv. Tender Offer Litig., 725 F. Supp.
712, 729-30 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (provision of the treaty containing language, « notwithstanding other provisions »), is expressly contradicted by the contrary provisions). The effect of a « no prejudice » clause will prevail over priority clauses, « although other provisions of the treaty may be applicable. . . . A result [of a conflictual nature]. Cisneros, 508 United States to 18-19. Here is an example of the sentence, notwithstanding the contrary, that is used in a contract: the provocative phrase can also be used to remotely effect a change in the way rights and obligations are assessed in a contract.
Veneto submitted that under Section 3.1.7 (a) (v) of the loan agreement, THE CCAAF was required to finance the hotel`s operating costs after the default. Veneto also submitted that the « notwithstanding » language of Section 3.1.11 (a) does not apply to Section 3.1.7 (a)v), since this provision had been amended in the Second Amendment and that the « non-language » did not apply to subsequent amendments. Let us be honest, sometimes we want uncertainty in the Treaty and sometimes we want more security.