“As a witness, the parties enforced this agreement.” If you read “IN WITNESS WHEREOF,” the parties have made a commitment to execute and provide this agreement, is a statement from both parties that they are signing this contract and implicitly acknowledge that its terms are binding. For the same reason, I do not use the phrase that must be bound by law. See this 2012 contribution. 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 the contract, they should not be allowed to approach a commercial contract. At the end of the day, remember that a contract must clearly explain the intent of the parties. The signatures authorized for MICHIGAN and the Company`s Company mentioned below mean their acceptance of the terms of this ACCORD. In modern times, this term has little legal value, but it continues to be used to demonstrate a degree of formalism in the Treaty. In both final clauses, the parties declare that they accept the terms of the contract. This is not necessary: the signing of a treaty is sufficient to mark its agreement. The term “witness” suggests that the undersigned party presents a certificate or certificate. The expression as a witness means that a person who signs the legal document certifies the content of what is in the document.
This is how this agreement was executed on the day it was written first. In essence, the parties who sign the treaty certify that they certify the treaty of the legal document or that they recognize a legal document. First, the assertion that the parties were responsible for the implementation of the agreement by their duly empowered officials is of no use, as can be seen. By nature, a corporation can only enter into the contract by representing one or more individuals. Second, you should not include a guarantee in the concluding clause that states that the exporting individual is authorized. If the signatory is not entitled to hire the party it purports to represent (and that party does not ratify this incompetence), the law of the mandate or agency is liable to the unauthorized signatory for the extent of the harm suffered by the other party. Third, the expression that wants to be legally bound is nonsense: it is not necessary for the parties to express this intention explicitly for a contract to be enforceable. Fourth, the sentence contains a number of archaisms: at WITNESS WHEREOF, like WITNESSETH before the preamble, contracts should be waived not only because contracts are rarely to be attested, but also because they are outdated.