reflecting unit 30b and the side and lower electrodes 40 and 37 through the silicon substrate 15.
Accordingly, if the electrostatic force between the driving unit 30a and the side and lower electrodes 40 and 37 is referred to as f1 and the electrostatic force between the reflecting unit 30b and the side and lower electrodes 40 and 37 is referred to as f2, an electrostatic force f3 actually contributing to driving the micromirror 30 is equal to f1-f2. In other words, when driving the micromirror 30 through the driving unit 30a, the electrostatic force introduced by interaction between the reflecting unit 30b and the side and lower electrodes 40 and 37 acts upon the micromirror 30 in a direction opposite to the direction of the driving force ofInnominate term

In English contract law, an innominate term is an intermediate term which cannot be defined as either a "condition" or a "warranty".

In Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962 2 QB 26) the Court of Appeal of England and Wales first conceived the notion of an "innominate term". This was followed in the case of The Mihalis Angelos (1971 1 QB 174).

Importance
The classification of terms is fundamental in contract law as it affects the legal rights of a party in the event of a breach of contract. Innominate terms of contracts are one of the three categories of terms of contract, the others being warranties and conditions.

The creation of this innominate category of terms (also known as "intermediate") is associated with the