Personal covenants are also called transitive and intransitive. Transitive alliances refer to the time when the obligation to fulfill them is transferred to the representatives of the federal donor. Intransitive alliances are limited to itself, as in the case of teaching an apprentice. He has the right to view the threat posed by Hamas as a devastating threat, given the emphatic language of his pact. Therefore, there is no point in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture to try to convey this in the hebrews passage [455], where the covenant is presented as a testament, either that the term διαθηχη can only have the meaning _testament_ there, or that it must be reproduced exclusively throughout. An explicit pact or in fact a pact is a commitment that is expressly agreed between the parties and inserted in the document. The law does not require specific language to form an explicit alliance. The word „covenant“ is therefore not absolutely necessary. Other terms are also considered covenants, such as: A covenant in gross is different from an alliance that runs with the earth because it is personal and binds only the respective owner and not the country itself. A subsequent owner is not obliged to keep the promise as one would with a covenant appendage. Accept the Sabbatarian definition of covenant, and it legitimately follows that no one has ever been in this covenant except those who conversed with Jehovah through Moses and said, „We will observe and do all this.“ After all, how do you explain an alliance to someone from the outside? A foreigner should not eat it: it belonged above all to the federal people. COVENANT (a form O. Fr., later agreeable, to agree, lat.
agree), a reciprocal agreement between two or more parties or a commitment made by one of the parties. In the Bible, the Hebrew word „i,“ „berith,“ is often used for many types of chords; it is then applied to a treaty between two persons or a treaty between two nations, such as the alliance between Abimelech and Isaac, which is a contract between the Israelites and the Philistines (Gen. xxvi. 26 et seq.); in particular, a commitment between God and man or such agreements which, by observing a religious rite, considered God as a part of the commitment. For the derivation of the Berith, two propositions were made: (1) to continue the word from a root „to cut“, and the reference refers to the primitive rite of cutting the victims into parts, between which the parties to an agreement existed, cf. the Greek opK.a TEμvecv, and the narrative (Gen. xv. 17) the covenant between God and Abraham, where „a smoking stove and a lamp lit between the pieces“ of the sacrifices Abraham had sacrificed; (2) Connection with an Assyrio-Babylonian biritu, a chain, an alliance. Berith was translated in the Septuagint by 8eaOixn, which in classical Greek had the meaning of „will“; therefore, the Vulgate in the Psalms and the New Testament translates the word as testamentum, but elsewhere in the Old Testament as foedus or pactum; Similarly, Wycliffe`s version indicates „will“ or „alliance.“ Books of Scripture that deal with the Old or Mosaic and the New or Christian Dispensation are sometimes called the Books of the Old and New Covenants. The word appears in the system of theology developed by John Cocceius and known as „covenant“ or „federal“ theology, based on the two covenants of works or life that God made with Adam on the condition of obedience and grace or redemption with Christ.
In the history of the Scottish Church, the covenant appears in the two agreements signed by members of the Scottish Church to defend their religious and ecclesiastical systems (see Covenanters). COVENANT, Contracts. An alliance, conventio, in its most general sense, means any type of promise or contract, whether in writing or through Parol. Rapacious. p.C.b. 1, c. 27, para. 7, p. 4. In a more technical sense, and the one in which it is considered here, a pact is an agreement concluded in writing and under seal between two or more persons, in which each party establishes the truth of certain facts or promises to do or give something to the other or to refrain from accomplishing certain things. 2 Com. 303-4; Ferry.
From. Covenant, in pr.; 4 Cruise, 446; Sheppard, keys. 160; 1 Harring. 151, 233 1 Bibb, 379; 2 Bibb, 614; 3 John. 44; 20 John. 85; 4 days, 321. 2. What differs from an express presumption is that the former can be made orally or in writing and not under lock and key, while the latter must always be made by document. In a supposit, a consideration must be shown; in a pact, no consideration is required to give it its validity, not even before a court of equity. Plowd. 308; 7 T.R. 447; 4 Barn.
& Ald. 652; 3 Bingh. 111. 3. It is proposed to consider first the general requirements of a pact; and second, the different types of alliances. 4.-1. The general requirements are as follows: 1. Right-hand parts. 2d. Words of consent. 3d A legal purpose. 4.
An appropriate form. 5.-1. The parties must be as they can conclude a contract in accordance with the law. If either for lack of understanding, as in the case of an idiot or a madman; or in the case of an infant, if the contract is not to his advantage; or if there is understanding, but for certain reasons, such as coverage, in the case of a married woman, or coercion, in any case, the parties are not competent, they cannot commit. See Parties to actions. 6.-2d. There must be an agreement. Consent or consent must be mutual, as the agreement would be incomplete if one of the parties refused to consent to any of its conditions. The consent of the Contracting Parties necessarily presupposes a free, fair and serious exercise of the capacity for argument. If, for any reason, this free consent is not given, the contract is not binding. See Consent.
7.-3d. A pact against a positive law or public order is usually void. See Nullity; Shep. Key. 163. As an example of the first, a covenant of one man is that he will steal another; and the last, an alliance of a merchant or merchant that he will not follow his profession or vocation. This, if unlimited, is absolutely null, but if the pact is that he should not conduct his business in a certain place, as he will not act in the city of Philadelphia, the pact is no longer against public order. See Shep. Key.
164. The obligation to do something impossible is also null and void. Ib. 8.-4. In order to make a commitment, it must be made by certificate or seal as defined above. No particular form of words is necessary to make a commitment, but all words expressing the intention of the parties in relation to the subject matter of the contract are sufficient. See many examples in Bac. Abr. Bund, A Selw.
No. 469; COM. Dig. Bund, A 2; 3. John. R. 44; 5 Munf. 483. 9.
In Pennsylvania, Delaware and Missouri, it is stipulated by law that the words grant, negotiate and sell are equivalent to an agreement under which the grantor has been authorized by an estate for a fee, free from all charges it has committed or suffered, and for the quiet pleasure of its actions. However, it was noted that these words in the Pennsylvania Statute of 1715 (and the decision will also apply to legal language in the other two states) did not constitute a general guarantee, but simply an agreement that the grantor had taken no action or created a burden by which the estate could be defeated. 2 containers. 95; 11 pp. & r. 111, 112; 4 Kent, Com. 460. 10.-2. The different types of alliances. You are, 1. Express or implied. 1.
An explicit pact, or indeed a pact, is an explicit commitment agreed between the parties and inserted in the act. The law does not require a specific form to make an explicit pact. The formal word „Bund“ is therefore not absolutely necessary. 2. Mod. 268; 3 keb. 848; 1 Leon, 324; 1 Bing. 433; 8 J.B.
Moore, 546; 1 chap. 294; 16 East, 352; 12 East, 182 n.; 1 Bibb, 379; 2 Bibb 614; 3 John. 44; 5 Cowen, 170; 4 days, 321 4 conn. 508; 1 Harring. 233. The words „I am committed“; „Okay,“ 1 Ves. 516; 2 Mod. 266; or: „I undertake to pay so much on such a day and on such another day;“ Hardener. 178; 3 Leon. 119, pl. 199; are considered alliances; and the same goes for the words of a link.
1 chap. 194. But words that merely import an order or instruction that other persons must pay a sum of money are not undertakings. 6 J.B. Moore, 202, n. (a.) 11.-1. An implicit covenant is an alliance that the law hears and implies, although it is not expressed in words. 1 Common Bench Rep.
402; Co. Bed. 139,b; Vaughans Rep. 118; Rawle on Covenants, 364. Some words do not import an explicit agreement in themselves, but are used in some contracts, which have a similar functioning and which are called in the law of commitments. They are as effectively binding on the parties as if they were expressed in the clearest possible terms. Ferry. From. Bund, B.
A few examples will fully explain this. .