From the foregoing, I draw the following conclusions. First, the presence or absence of a term in an agreement that it will survive reconciliation is not necessarily determinative of whether the agreement survives reconciliation. There was such a term in Aitken v. Aitken and the agreement did not survive. On the other hand, there was no such term in the agreement in Sydor v. Sydor and yet, at least in relation to one piece of property, it survived the parties’ reconciliation. Having said that, the terms of the agreement are important to the resolution of the issue. Second, the conduct of the parties, both at the time of and following their reconciliation, is important because it may shed light on whether, in spite of the language of their agreement, they thought it continued to govern their affairs either in whole or in part.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.