My point is that there are so many possible variants of what the parties might really want if they think carefully about the fact that there aren`t really any successors and « standard » attribution clauses. And on the other hand, sometimes the economics of the situation does not justify getting cogged down in these details, which are unlikely – insisting on probably – will not matter. But if something unexpected happens and the lawyer has only done « passerines », his client may not see the result. And if the lawyer sprinkles the client with « what if » in advance and the costs of drafting the contract increase, complicate or delay negotiations with the other party, his client may not like it either. Therefore, the practice of law is just that, a practice, not a science. What does the word « successor » mean? Who are the « successors »? Do those who enter into the contract know who the successors are? The Court of Appeals considered another objection from Belleville, namely that the Browns used the 1953 agreement as a sword — to sue and assert rights positively — not as a shield — or as a defense. In modern Supreme Court cases, where the right of third parties to rely on a contract they had not signed was recognized, those third parties have invoked the contract as a defence. If the integration clause goes on to say (as some do) that neither party relies on any oral or written agreement, other than what is expressly contained in the contract, and says (as some do) that neither party will ever claim that there has ever been such an agreement, then the contract is almost certainly « fully integrated ». Brown v. The Belleville Order addresses one of the issues raised by the « estate clauses. » On the basis of this decision, a person covered by the clause does not have to worry about the old rule that contract law does not recognize the rights of third parties. If the contact has a clause in favour or a clause binding on the successors, the successors are contracting parties as well as the original parties.
The Court of Appeal held that, on its face, the contract had created a class of persons who could enforce the contract as contracting parties, namely the successors of the owner who had entered into the agreement. In this sense, the Browns did not have to prove the application of the « third-party beneficiary rule ». They were indeed parties like the original party. But which parties would be willing to be bound by the contractor`s construction contract with an owner? Would a subcontractor or supplier do this? Probably not, especially if it includes payment obligations. .