Allowing cumulative remedies is exactly what is in fact to preserve the maximum available rights taking into account the contractual conditions. With respect to the idea that the “cumulative remedies” provision can save you uncertainty about the standard rule in a given jurisdiction, I accept that as justification only if someone shows me evidence of this type of insecurity. Could there ever be a context in which a provision on “cumulative remedies” would be useful? Here too, the platform for negotiations and draft contracts is as follows: in this regard, contractual clauses and legal provisions offer a number of remedies, whether exclusive or cumulative. Cumulative remedies concern the creditor with the obligation to obtain fair compensation for the performance not performed and fair compensation for the damage suffered. In business contracts in San Diego, there is often a provision for “cumulative rights” in the “Miscellaneous Provisions” section of the contract. A typical cumulative rights clause could be so simple: Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate (Ed. Tina L. Stark 2003) provides useful background information about boilerplate`s layouts. Here are some of the statements relating to the “cumulative remedies” provision (omitted citations): with respect to the inclusion in a contract of a “cumulative remedies” provision providing for special remedies (such as lump sum damages or an injunction), this claim could simply be raised by the statement “in addition to all other legal remedies” or something similar. The modern general rule is that all remedies, whether under customary law, law or equity, are cumulative.
In the event of an infringement, the non-injuring party is entitled to pursue all remedies which, according to the facts of the case, are available during the dispute, even if some of these remedies may not be incompatible. Ultimately, a court will ask an applicant to choose between inconsistent remedies if this is necessary to avoid overcompensation of the applicant. Generally speaking, this must be done after the judgment and before the award is pronounced, although the courts have a wide margin of appreciation as to that date and, in some cases, the courts have imposed the choice early enough if they consider that the evidence of the two appeals was confusing. Finally, whether two remedies are inconsistent in a given case depends heavily on the facts and, again, the courts have a wide margin of appreciation to allow an applicant to pursue several apparently inconsistent appeals. . . .