First, the assertion that the parties had the contract performed by their duly authorized employees, as can be seen, is useless. A legal person, by its very nature, may conclude the contract only by representing it by one or more natural persons. Second, you should not include in the final clause the guarantee that the performing natural person is justified. If the signatory does not have the power to lir the party he or she claims to represent (and that party does not ratify such a lack of authority), the law of the mandate or agency is liable for the full harm suffered by the other party. Thirdly, the sentence that wants to be legally bound is absurd: it is not a prerequisite for the applicability of a contract that the parties explicitly express such an intention. Fourth, the sentence contains a number of archaisms: AT WITNESS WHEREOF, as witnessth before the preamble, one must renounce not only because contracts must be rarely testified, but also because it is old-fashioned. Finally, these gifts are an obsolete alternative to this agreement. The sentence that was written the day and year first is thief. It is worth referring to the date of signature (or the date of entry into force), but make sure that this date will only appear once on the document if you indicate something like the date written above).
If you want each signer to note the date of signature, place the notation Date: below each signature line. Thus, that agreement was concluded on the date on which the first one was written above. Witnesses (“of what”) to whom do many authors refer in the signature block? You are a ridiculous heritage of medieval common law culture. Get rid of them in agreements (but you would need “acts” governed by English law). For the same reason, I do not use the expression that must be legally linked. See this 2012 contribution. READ MORE, the Parties have given their consent to the terms of this Agreement by their signatures below on the dates indicated. ACCORDINGLY, parties intending to be legally bound have induced their officials in good and due form to execute and provide such gifts from the date and year in which they were written above. I do not even think it is worth reminding the parties that a treaty is binding. If someone does not know the effects of signing a contract, they should not be fired near a business contract. But sometimes you have to include something about acceptance. For example, an employee separation agreement I recently prepared contained the following: “He understands the terms of this agreement and voluntarily accepts it.” It is prescribed by law; Forgive me for not remembering the details.
In these two final clauses, the parties say they accept the terms of the contract. This is not necessary: the signing of a contract is sufficient to indicate the reason. The authorized signatures for MICHIGAN and COMPANY mentioned below signify their agreement to accept the terms of this Agreement. That is the conclusion. Overall, you can forego the final sentence as long as it goes beyond a single line of text (visually separated)….