0
  • Hereinafter called the "FIRST PARTY/ DEVELOPER" (which expression unless there be anything inconsistent therewith in the context shall mean and include his legal representatives, executors and assigns) of the ONE PART:
4
  • 1
    You don't know who is being called the FIRST PARTY/ DEVELOPER of the ONE PART? Jan 4, 2021 at 5:26
  • 4
    It means: whoever was being talked about in the previous sentence is just gonna be called “first party” or “developer” in the rest of the document. And, where it makes sense, this name can also refer to the developer’s legal representatives, executors and assigns.
    – Jim
    Jan 4, 2021 at 5:48
  • Thanks for clarifying those, what about that written within the brackets. i.e. which expression unless there be anything inconsistent therewith in the context shall mean and include his legal representatives, executors and assigns
    – User27854
    Jan 4, 2021 at 7:30
  • This Is not a sentence.
    – Conrado
    May 5, 2021 at 9:38

2 Answers 2

-1

I add my own explanatory notes {so} in the hope that they may help you.

{I presume that the first section of the sentence introduced some person} Hereinafter {within this legal contract, from this point onwards in the document defining the contract} called the "FIRST PARTY/ DEVELOPER" (which expression {referring to the capitalised phrase} unless there be anything inconsistent therewith in the context {unless it makes no sense to refer in such manner} shall mean and include {making the document apply not only to the person but to anyone who later obtains the contract by gift purchase or inheritance} his legal representatives, executors and assigns {list of those who might later obtain the contract} ) of the ONE PART {restricts the contact to the person or party first mentioned, excluding any other parties}: "

4
  • -1 For the “obtaining via gift, purchase, or inheritance” part. That’s not what it means.
    – Jim
    Jan 4, 2021 at 19:42
  • @Jim You omit to say what you think it does mean. I stick to my assertion. If the contract is later handled by a representative, executor or assignee, these offices will usually arise by gift, purchase or inheritance. I admit I could have explained that point better but life is short.
    – Anton
    Jan 4, 2021 at 22:09
  • 1
    Anton, well yes for assigns, but legal reps and executors operate on behalf of, here, the developer- no transfer of the contract required.
    – Jim
    Jan 4, 2021 at 22:15
  • Useful comments and I should have elaborated in my own answer. Thanks.
    – Anton
    Jan 4, 2021 at 22:30
0

Well I met this question too when dealing with some contract, so I think I definitely have something to say here...

First of all, I firmly believe the term of "which expression" is grammatically incorrect, because for an attributive clause, it onlys needs to use the antecedent "which", and thus it's completely wrong to add any other word after it. But if you really want to add some noun after the antecedent, you would rather use another antecedent like "whose". If so, in this case, it would be "whose expression" (Obviously doesn't look very smart...).

Second, let me make my paraphrase for you here below:

From now on we call the person the "FIRST PARTY/ DEVELOPER" of the ONE PART. If there is no other explanation in this document, we have to accept that the "FIRST PARTY/ DEVELOPER" will also include the person's legal representatives, executors and assigns.

4
  • 2
    'Which' in 'which expression' is a relative determiner and is totally grammatical (if archaic/legalese) here. 'I saw some cows and sheep, which animals were grazing contentedly in the field.' May 5, 2021 at 10:27
  • (if archaic/legalese)... yes as you put it, but not in a standard grammar. For instance, "Lia is a robot which speaks both Chinese and English." Then if we follow your rule, it would be "Lia is a robot which robot speaks both Chinese and English." Doesn't it sound ridiculous and not necessary? May 6, 2021 at 7:58
  • Not as ridiculous as 'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,' which sentence Chomsky gave as an example of where grammaticality and acceptability don't correspond. You used the term 'grammatical'. // And using 'your rule' instead of 'the rule which you mention here' is disingenuous. I didn't write this Wikipedia article ('relative determiners'). May 6, 2021 at 11:59
  • @Edwin Ashworth Fair well, I respect your explanation here. May 8, 2021 at 0:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.