Valeur.Products · Governing Law Reading
The law your contract is governed by changes what the clause means.
In one country a notice period is a condition precedent that extinguishes the right; in another it is open to argument under good faith. Same clause, same sentence, two different outcomes. Valeur does not flatten that difference: it tells you how the clause reads under the law governing your contract, and shows you the source it rests on.
A reading is not a decision. The output does not say “void” or “you will win”; it says what to do and what to watch for.
Three things, and each one comes with the source it rests on.
Your contract’s country and the edition it runs under are given; the rest is reading. The three below are not asked for separately — they arrive together inside the answer when you open a clause.
-
01
Reads the clause under the governing law
The same notice clause can be a strict condition precedent or a procedural step open to argument, depending on the law it runs under. The answer tells you which one you are getting and what it rests on; it does not average the two readings into a single sentence.
-
02
States which edition it is speaking from
When standard contract forms change edition, clause numbers move with them; the same subject can sit at two different numbers in two books. The answer states which edition it used, so the number that goes into your correspondence is the right one.
-
03
Leaves what it does not know empty
Where there is no reading that can be shown with a source, the field comes back empty and says so. The text of a neighbouring legal system is not copied in, and no nearby country’s answer is borrowed.
Four steps, and each one ends by stating what it cannot do.
This is what happens, in order, when you ask about a clause. Putting the limit at the end of each step is a choice: caveats gathered at the bottom are a brochure; a limit that ends the step’s own body is a specification.
-
01
You state the governing law and the edition
The country and the edition are inputs to the answer, not guesses. If you do not name the edition, the current one is assumed — and which edition was assumed is written into the answer as a field of its own.
LIMITThe link is at country level. A separate jurisdiction inside a country cannot be selected on its own; if your contract is governed by one, the reading you get is the country’s.
-
02
You open the clause by name or by number
You can say “notice” or you can write the clause number. Both land on the same subject, and which edition the number belongs to is resolved separately.
LIMITA wording with no match is not nudged into a nearby subject. The answer says there was no match and names the subjects that are covered.
-
03
You get the reading with its source
Every reading that is filled in rests on a publisher whose name and link can be given. Because you can see the source, you can take the reading to your own counsel; that the answer is arguable is a condition it was built under.
LIMITAn interpretation that cannot be sourced never goes in at all. The price is fields left empty, and the price is paid: what is missing does not get dressed up as filled.
-
04
You see what to do, not what will happen
The output gives procedure: what to do, what to watch for, which argument the other side can build. These are things your team can plan a next move around.
LIMITNo outcome prediction. Whether a claim will succeed, or whether a clause holds, is not stated here; that turns on the specific facts, the governing law and the forum seized of the dispute.
Three limits, and none of the three is a gap waiting to be closed.
None of these is a roadmap item. The first comes from the resolution of the list, the second from the sourcing condition, the third from a deliberate refusal. Setting a limit in small print is being ashamed of it; these sit in the middle of the page.
-
01
The link is at country level
Some countries contain jurisdictions with a legal tradition of their own, and because the list works at country level it cannot write them separately. If your contract is governed by one of those, the reading you get is the country’s rather than the jurisdiction’s — read it knowing that.
-
02
The table is not full
Not every subject covered has an answer in every legal tradition covered. What is missing is missing because no source was found, not because it was judged unimportant — and the answer names the traditions where a reading does exist, so you can see where the hole is.
-
03
It does not state outcomes
The output does not say whether a clause holds or whether a claim will succeed. What it gives is procedure. That is not a shortfall; it is a condition set when it was built.
Every output opens by saying what it is not.
An output that reads like legal advice leads to decisions being taken inside the company without counsel ever seeing them, and the cost of that is the cost of the contract itself. So the warning is not a sentence added afterwards: it stands at the head of every answer, unconditionally. The answer that carries a reading and the answer that carries none bear the same stamp.
DRAFT — LEGAL REVIEW REQUIRED
The body of the stamp says this: the output is a sourced framework for assessment, not a definitive legal opinion or a prediction of outcome; the legal result turns on the specific facts, the governing law and the court or arbitral tribunal seized of the dispute, and cannot be guaranteed in advance. The final judgement belongs to qualified counsel.
Every reading in the source list belongs to a publisher; none of them is this page’s own legal interpretation, or Valeur’s.
Four questions, answered without hiding the limits.
What happens if my contract’s country is not on the list?
You still get an answer; only the field that depends on legal tradition stays empty. If the subject you asked about has a reading that does not turn on tradition, you get that; if not, the answer names the traditions where a reading exists. In no case is the nearest country’s reading copied across.
Can I use this output without going to my counsel?
No, and the output says so on its own face. What it gives is a framework for assessment: what the law says, with its source, and what it suggests doing. The legal result turns on the specific facts, the governing law and the forum seized of the dispute; that call belongs to qualified counsel. The framework’s job is to get you into that conversation prepared.
My contract runs under the older edition. Will a reading written for the newer one hand me the wrong number?
It will not, because the number is not chosen — the references from both editions are kept together. Every subject covered carries the number from both, and whichever edition your question names is the one resolved. If you do not name one, the current edition is assumed — and that it was assumed is written into the output as a field of its own, so you do not have to infer it.
How does a new legal tradition or country get into the knowledge base?
With a source, or not at all. A reading is written only when it rests on a publisher whose name and link can be given; if it does not, the place is left empty. The visible price is empty fields, and it is paid deliberately: one unsourced line makes every sourced line around it suspect.
Tell us the law your contract is governed by, and we will look at the reading you would get.
The call is not a demo: with the country and edition of the contract in front of you, we look together at whether a reading exists for the subject you care about. If it is empty, you will see that it is empty.