Legally, a witness must meet the requirements set by your jurisdiction, but most of the time he must witness it: although this means a greater number of signatories, it may still be preferable to any party who has to sign in the physical presence of a witness. Why not use this last example? First, the assertion that the parties had the contract performed by their duly authorized employees is useless. The concept implicitly refers to the (ancient) theoretical view that a legal person can be considered a personality in its own right. However, a legal person may, of course, conclude the contract only by representing one or more natural persons. Second, you should not include in the final clause a guarantee that the performing natural person is justified. If the signatory does not have the power to read the party he claims to represent (and that party does not ratify such a lack of power), the law of the mandate or agency is liable for the entire prejudice suffered by the other party. Thirdly, the sentence that must 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, like WITNESSTH before the preamble, one must give up not only because contracts must be rarely testified, but also because it is old-fashioned….
The main problem with verbs that are used together or separately is that, despite the lack of a plausible basis, some believe they involve certain remedies. It can be expected that those who accept or tolerate the justification of remedies despite their weaknesses will continue to sow confusion. This could result in a waste of time in negotiations, as well as a waste of time and money in contract disputes that could have been avoided. In any event, there was in that specific contract a clause relating to the “whole agreement” in which the buyer had agreed not to rely on assurances or guarantees other than the explicit and defined contractual guarantees, or that he had been brought into the SPA by other insurances or guarantees. Even if the buyer`s main arguments had been successful, the entire contractual clause would have defeated the claim. The first part of the solution aims to eliminate confusion: do not use any representative, arrest warrant or expression representing and justifying the introduction of factual allegations. First, representations and warranties are used in any type of contract. It is known that the guarantee right applies to the sale of goods, but even if you also take into account the role of the guarantee right for negotiable instruments, bank deposits and receipts, credits, ownership documents and investment securities, not all types of contracts using representations and warrants would fall within the scope of the guarantee right, as is generally understood. It follows that the treatment of a contractual representation established by guarantees or called a guarantee would require that the right of guarantee be extended to factual statements to which the right of guarantee, as generally understood, would not be applicable.
There is no principled basis for this. In addition, using insurance or warrants or both to introduce factual claims unnecessarily injects legal concepts into contracts. This makes contracts less clear, even for those who are not inclined to see verbs as a remedy. But all these problems are beyond the scope of this article. What is relevant for the current purposes is that instead of using representations, arrest warrants or both for the purpose of including or excluding certain remedies, it would be clearer to explicitly express the intended importance, when it is a separate question of whether it would be worthwhile. The High Court recently highlighted this distinction in its analysis of the terms of a sales contract (SPA) entered into as part of an oil and gas exploration project. The case of Idemnitsu Kosan Co Ltd v Sumitomo Co Corp  therefore provides welcome clarification to all commercial parties. Where permissive and restrictive justifications differ, it is the manner in which they deal with a factual claim that is not established by representations or warranties, or by both, or otherwise explicitly referred to as insurance, warranty, or both. According to the permissible version, such a naked factual statement could still be considered insurance or guarantee, depending on the very nature of the statement. .