Agreement Witness Parties
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….