Agreed.Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO contract, nor shall...
That is why this unique dual-clause semicolon link structure was employed within this part of the Notice and Demand document. Semicolons are used to link two independent clauses to connect closely related ideas. The ?not withstanding? clause in this regard must play second fiddle to the clear and unambiguous prohibition clause that follows it. The "NO contract, nor shall any provision thereof, act or operate in any way or manner, to eliminate, diminish, or conflict with any provision contained within this Notice and Demand" part would remain in effect if the first clause was somehow shown to be inapplicable or invalid. The resultant effect would be like that of a severability clause that does not change the fundamental nature of the Notice and Demand.
Think about how many account agreements and/or signature cards the banks have required us to sign without allowing us to read or modify/annotate what is written on the contract. Present day, they require us to sign an electronic signature capture pad - and offer the account holder NOTHING showing what documents or contracts the financial institution has placed the electronic signature on. The above Notice and Demand provisions were specifically included in this document to offset and nullify such abusive financial institution practices.
How would others here on this forum suggest rewording the paragraph below to be more concise in this regard and possibly work in the fraud by omission language David was referring to in his previous post?
Originally Posted by Notice and Demand for Lawful Money in all Transactions, paragraph 2:
Reply With Quote