You agree to waive any future rights, to sue or to make any claim in connection with the incident, or to make a claim under this agreement. The waiver of your rights includes all claims that may have been unknown at the time of signing the contract, as well as future unknown injuries or medical effects and the deterioration of all conditions arising from the incident or claim. “This agreement is entered into in full and final compensation for all claims, actions, liabilities, expenses or claims that the claimants have or may have against the defendants or [designated third parties], whether they are known or considered at the time of this transaction agreement or that result from or related to this transaction agreement in any way… The procedure… or with transactions between the parties on loans to defendants or investments in defendants… or anyone who just has to do it. The agreement to waive all legal (usually common) legal and potential claims should be established in a written transaction contract tailored to certain staff members and their personal circumstances. They must include a waiver of certain rights that the employee has or may have for the future. There are certain legal requirements that a transaction contract must meet in order to be valid. Caution should therefore be exercised when developing such an agreement and, if necessary, consult your local labour law specialist.
However, in the recent decision of the Cook4Life CC/CCMA et al. labour tribunal (2013) 34 ILJ 2018 (LC), it was found that “when a worker claimed to have been compelled to have entered into the agreement, the CCMA was entitled to rule on the agreement within its jurisdiction in order to determine the existence of a dismissal.” To settle this matter amicably, I offer you the sum of [amount] (including interest and fees) as a full and final account of the [debt/debt] mentioned above. Admittedly, it was recognized that the broad wording used in the transaction agreement “showed a clear intention of the parties to seize all possible claims… whether any of them were aware of it or not” and that these words “were chosen as a means of ensuring that Mr. Siddiqi would never have to fear another allegation by Mr. Kazeminy regarding the technology in question”, it was said that it was clear that the parties never turned to the rights of third parties like Mr. Grano and never intended to agree with them. Point West submitted that the transaction did not exclude a claim for compensation for defects in the construction contract, including latent defects. When it got rid of Mivan, Point West said it felt the defects were very small, but were now “generalized basic defects in design and installation, which requires a complete replacement at a very high cost.” Accordingly, the CoA judge decided that the text used in the transaction agreement was broad enough to allow for subsequent recourse to negligence, regardless of the fact that no claim had been made at the time of the transaction agreement.