Funding agreement is the document, which ensures the repayments over the estimated period of time. Funding agreement connects the developer with the fund. Funding agreements may be the kind of the arrangement, scholarship or documents about co-working. Except this funding agreement is often used because of features like: not high risk and established profits (B. A. Amernick 2012, p. 114).
The role and functions of the funding agreement
The connection among the constructor and fund, as testify of the funding agreement is(N. Dubben, B. Williams 2009, p. 180):
- the constructor efficiently controls the program’s plan in such way, that the stock accepts a finished structure.
- That structure should be appropriate to the whole enclosure demands of the fund.
The constructor has to focus on the program’s existence. The payment day is considered to be the program’s finish. And from another side, the fund considers the start as the actual program (the control of the enclosure) appears. In the process of the planning occur a lot of the verification processes in the funding agreement. It is done for defending the fund’s benefits and can be the object of the judgment examination (like corrects in the design). The specialists will probably infrequently be responsible for the discarding of constructor’s application. Especially in the case when it is according to the order of the employee. Particular chapters of the funding agreement are projected in the unconditional principles. For example, the max loaning border, which connects the constructor with reaching pragmatic result up to the estimated day. In the situation, when the constructor surpasses the money borders, the contract will count a fee for the constructor. It means, that he should pay that sum together with the interest counted on the everyday base. Usually, it is an uncommon amount or other dangerous arrangements. The constructor is usually extremely adapted with an elaboration planning. In the case when the financial system has been attentively planned, the constructor’s stimulus payment should behave in the role of the funding defence. Because it is the constructor’s income which must be worth of the enhancing in the time of the program (N. Dubben, B. Williams 2009, p. 180).
The politics of the funding agreement
The common politics is(B. A. Amernick 2012, p. 114):
- not big firms or non commercial institutions can decide at the moment of the valid agreement to save the rights on the invention, that was created according to the agreement.
The government should at least support financing agreement documents because of the esteeming to not big firms and non commercial institutions. That is the possibility of obtaining the irretrievable and paid patent for the experiments, that have been already invented due to the agreement for the whole country. The document can ensure extra rights. For example, the freedom for the government to ensure the straight patenting by the constructor of another government or international institution. A developer considered to be any individual, not big business company, or non commercial institutions, which is a side of the funding agreement connected to the government (B. A. Amernick 2012, p. 114).
New York law example
In New York is no established legal commitment for the revealing the essence by the law court of the funding agreement for a trial. But the resistance side might force the revelation of the trial funding agreement. It happens in the situation, when the trial estimates that the document is pertinent for the occasion and that it will not be defended from the revelation. The solely one trial of New York has applied for the revelation of such document. It established that the case was not pertinent. It was decided because of not accepting the attorney by the court. Estimating the accordance of the rank attorney is a very restricted and concrete assay. Sometimes there are situations when the trial established that the agreement was pertinent. In such case, the side must be demanded to reveal the funding agreement. But it refers when the document is not defended from the revelation by the lawyer - customer liberties or product project security (S. Friel 2017, p. 58).
- Amernick B. A.(2012), Patent Law for the Nonlawyer, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, p. 114.
- Chen-Wishart M.(2010), Contract Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 15-30.
- Dubben N., Williams B.(2009), Partnership in Urban Property Development, John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, p.180.
- Friel S.(2017), Litigation Funding, Law Business Research, London, p. 58.
- Funding the future: Access to finance for entrepreneurs in the G20 (2012), EY, p. 4 – 30.
- McLaughlin, J. H. (2006),Litigation funding: Charting a legal and ethical course, No 31, p. 615.
Author: Bartłomiej Borówko