The plaintiff submits that the nature of the cost sharing agreement is not amenable to an implied right to terminate the agreement upon notice. The plaintiff notes that pursuant to the cost sharing agreement the parties shared assets and obligations without any provision for a division upon termination which the plaintiff suggests should lead to the conclusion the agreement was not terminable upon notice. She argues that it would be improper to imply a termination provision into the cost sharing agreement unless the implied term is necessary and so obvious that “it goes without saying” it is a necessary addition to the agreement. See Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries (1926), Limited,  2 K.B. 206 at 227.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.