In fact, a default comparison and sharing agreement is perhaps one of the best (or worst) examples of design with a synonymous excess – why use a word to express your meaning, when the English language contains so many other words that essentially mean the same thing that you can create a virtual stream of words to express that meaning?  The result is a document that may seem to some that it contains a lot of old simple kauderling. The obligation not to take legal action is very different from the exemption from liability. An authorization is a waiver or waiver of a known right. An exemption from liability gives or destroys the means derived from the victim. On the other hand, the obligation not to bring legal proceedings is not to waive a known right; Nothing is abandoned or destroyed. An obligation not to bring an action preserves the existence of the remedy, but contractually limits the victim`s right of appeal. Among the many seemingly amphigetic provisions contained in a standard settlement and release agreement are both an authorization and a separate obligation not to take legal action. Why can one ask if you need a promise from the liberating party not to sue you for the liberated demands, when the liberation itself is clear and unequivocal to release those demands? Well, it turns out there`s a reason, and a recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, Pro Done, Inc. v. Basham, No. 2018-0060, 2019 WL 1967686 (N.H.
May 3, 2019) illustrates the benefits of an independent obligation not to prosecute in addition to a publication. . . .