“The reparations and thought costs granted or granted by this Article V apply to a person who is no longer a director or officer and who benefits that person`s heirs, executors and directors.” [Added highlight.] This clause is intended to regulate the rule of what happens when the parties argue later in the future if a significant part of the agreement is not included in the written contract. Specifically, the entire agreement/integration clause comes into play (if the contract has one), when the parties argue in court over the terms of the agreement (or argue over who they think they will win if there is legal action). In these disputes, one side is generally happier with what the Treaty literally says, while the other is not so happy – either because they did not read and negotiated the draft contract carefully before they signed, or because they could never imagine the circumstances that had now emerged from the quarrel. As a result, the judge or jury will decide for themselves only after the contract has been read or if the judge or jury will also hear statements about what the parties intended to be part of the agreement, even if it is not in the written contract. Following the resignation of an outgoing administrative officer as an administrative officer, the provisions of this section 9 and Section 10.5 will continue to be invoked in his favour [please read that he is still an administrative officer for the purposes of the protection afforded to the administrative officer in accordance with this section 9 and Section 10.5 above]. The integration clause really comes into play when one party says that there have been discussions and agreements that were not recorded in the written contract, but were still part of the agreement. A typical integration clause says something like “this contract expresses the parties` full understanding of the transactions described here.” Therefore, if the contract contains such a clause and a page later says that there was another aspect of the deal that was agreed but not included in the contract (z.B. the buyer would get a 10% discount for each week of delay), the other party will refer to the integration clause and argue: that it prohibits any declaration that such another agreement ever existed – that is, that the other party will indicate that the point “complete agreement” clause leerling says that the contract expresses full understanding of the purpose of the contract, so that there can be no other important conditions that are not included in the written contract. Apart from that (and this is a point that even some lawyers do not seem to understand) if the treaty contains a keyword of the provision that is simply ambiguous, the judge will always allow the parties to say what that term should mean. That is because the purpose of the act is to enforce the Treaty, but if, when you read the treaty, you cannot say what the means, you have to get testimony from the parties about what they were trying to say.