Question about contracts

[autocollantes]

I have a general question about contracts. I have no experience with law or lawyers, so no idea what's normal practice with contracts.

Question:
Is it a normal legal practice to have a contract signed between two individuals that can only be altered or ended if both parties agree?

Background:
I'm thinking that when I sign a contract with my mortgage provider for X amount of time, I can get out of it earlier, if I pay a penalty.

When I sign with my employer I'm not able to quit effective immediately, I have to work a period of notice.

I sign a marriage contract with my spouse and I can get out of it via a judge.

In my case I signed a legal contract and I can only get out of it or alter it if the other person agrees. That was all fine until I realised there was a real financial need - a benefit of at least £5,000 to £10,000 to us both (a lot to me, less so to the other party, but still noticeable to them) - to change it and the other party refuses "just because" (literally their words). The other party would be in no way disadvantaged by the alteration - the whole point of the alteration is to save money. There is no legal recourse at all (I've confirmed this with two separate lawyers).

So this seems to me, a very lay person, as a failure in the contract writing. It means that while both parties are considered equal upon signing, as soon as one party wants to alter, the one who says No carries all the power, with no way or redressing that balance. Surely there always needs to be a get out clause or pathway indicated if there's a future dispute? People can't seriously be stuck in a contract against their will indefinitely? Or is that actually a normal thing in contracts and I'm just showing my ignorance?

(And yes, I've learned to never sign anything without independent legal advice - we had joint advice prior to signing that I now realise the value of independent advice!)

Hello. To answer your first question - yes it’s very normal for contracts to be unable to be varied without the agreement of both parties.

That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to get out of it but there are likely to be consequences, usually financial. If the point of the variation is to save you money then it’s a fairly simple calculation as to whether likely damages for breach are more or less than that saving.

There are other things to consider depending on specifics of the contract - is the termination provision an unfair contract term (assuming you’re a consumer), would your breach of the contract cause any loss; how likely is the other party to enforce the contract?

If you’ve had the specifics looked at by two lawyers it doesn’t sound very promising but I’m happy to give more specific steer if you want to describe the arrangement.

The point of a contract is to make an agreement the parties have reached legally binding. A contract may contain specific terms allowing one party to vary it without the other party's agreement. For example, a variable rate mortgage contract will contain clauses allowing the lender to change the interest rate. Unless a variation is specifically allowed in the contract (which it isn't in most contracts), it can only be changed by agreement. You complain this means you are unequal. You are not. You can't change the contract without the other party's agreement. The other party can't change the contract without your agreement. That is what is meant by a legally binding agreement. You seem to want a mechanism whereby you can impose the change you want on the other party without their agreement. That undermines the certainty that a contract is supposed to give.

A contract may contain termination clauses, setting out the ways the contract can be terminated and the consequences for doing so, but it doesn't have to do so. For example, a mortgage contract will allow you to terminate the contract by repaying the loan early and may specify a penalty you have to pay for doing so. Even if a contract doesn't say so, you can terminate without penalty if the other party commits a really serious breach of the contract (a repudiatory breach in legal terms).

As @Tort says, you can breach the contract. If you do so, the other party may no longer be bound by the contract (depending on the nature of the breach) and may be able to sue you for damages.

Thank you both so much for the extended answers. I really appreciate it.

The details of my contractual situation are unusual, so it's identifying to anybody who knows me - and unfortunately I didn't name change for this!

Vaguely, the contract is related to my marriage and is being used now to financially abuse me by a controlling STBX (well, hopefully STB..). I have figured out a way to alter it without disadvantaging him at all, other than removing the ability to abuse me further, plus ultimately bringing a large financial benefit to us both, but nothing can be changed without his agreement. And he refuses every suggestion because it's a way to have control. While I do understand that in principle of course we both have to agree, it also seems a pretty horrendous reality: I have to accept more financial abuse in order to exit the marriage due to this contract. That's why I think we're no longer equal partners in the contract (and if he weren't abusive, there would be no reason to reject my proposal - which is also legally sound).

Sorry if that doesn't make mush sense due to its vagueness. I've probably said too much already.

Things are legally quite complicated now (my proposal would also have simplified them!). While I have lawyers involved, there's just not time for the law 101 of things like "what is normal with drafting contracts?". So I find myself awake in the middle of the night trying to understand what is normal and what's not, legally speaking.

I’m sorry you’re having a bad time, really hope things pick up now you’re hopefully nearly rid of him!

Seconded