I have came across the following sentences:
It seems to me that the arrangement would lend itself to a subcontract agreement structure. In other words:
- [Company A] would engage [Company B], who would take on responsibility for all services
- [Company B] would subcontract certain of its services to the contractor.
- The contractor would then provide [Company A] with a contractual protection.
The benefit of this arrangement means that [Company A] would have direct recourse to both parties...
This arrangement can be complicated and would require an elaborate approach. There remains an element of risk to [Company A] that would be avoided by taking some precautions.
The standard rules most frequently explained in grammar books tell that would can be used:
to express general or repeated willingness in the past;
to talk about charasteristic behaviour or habit in the past;
as the future in the past (in reporting sentences);
in unreal conditionals that something might have happened in the past, but it didn't;
when we want to advise doing something in a polite manner;
in polite requests and offers.
In the examples, the speaker shares his views on how the arrangement may look like to address some issues. However, the example sentences do not seem to fit these rules.
I would be grateful if you could explain the rules for would that these examples follow.
Many thanks in advance.