Following a new procedure, the Court of Appeal gave the Omani shareholder the opportunity to bring witnesses to prove his ancillary agreement. However, the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence confirming ownership of the UAE partner for 51% of the shares. The court also rejected the complaint of the UAE partner, which refused to withdraw the Omani partner on the basis of the lack of evidence to support such a request. The problem with the application of either agreement is that neither party has an incentive to detect fraud, which “may not be the best way to protect the interests of third parties.” If the courts apply the main agreement through strict application of the Parol rule, they can eliminate third-party losses, Cohen suggested. But “the second part can withstand any risk of fraud.” In some cases, the application of ancillary restrictions may help third parties. A court could enforce the agreement provided that the third party aggrieved -. B for example, the IRS – be informed of the fraud. “We could also have other types of solutions based on the idea of dismissal” to third parties that would solve the problem of fraud. Ancillary agreements would also have broader implications for contract law and theory, Cohen argued. Secondary restrictions change the entire contract paradigm that exists in contract theory, Cohen said, because ancillary agreements are a deliberate attempt to render the main contract incomplete.
“There are many ways that contract theory can benefit from thinking about ancillary agreements and the idea of contract as property.” He concluded by saying, “Sometimes we have to look side by side to see what is right in front of us.” Secondly, in most European countries, letters do not infringe the rights of third parties, who are known to you, both of them, of an informed letter, if it is beneficial to them. An illustration of this rule can be found in a case in which the Supreme Court of France ruled that legitimate heirs could demand the reduction of a hidden gift contained in a letter signed by their author. But there is a greater responsibility related to this practice that your employees probably do not know about. When your employees enter into “incidental agreements” with your customers, your distributor may violate your indirect credit contracts with your lenders. For example, the Massachusetts Dealer Agreement (M-T Agreement) contains a language that prohibits these “incidental agreements.” As part of the M-T agreement, a trader who will hand over his contracts to M-T gives a positive image of the fact that the contract submitted to him is the only agreement between the customer and the distributor with respect to the transaction.