All of the exhibitions referred to in this agreement are part of this agreement. All the exhibits and calendars on display are expressly part of this agreement, as if they were on display in their entirety. It is customary for policyholders to believe that schedules and attachments to a contract are not part of this contract if they do not explicitly state it. It is a series of languages of the Treaty that reflect this adoption: it is all the more obvious that the text contains a comprehensive agreement stipulating that lists and annexes are an integral part of this agreement and refers to this agreement its lists and annexes. In theory, the concept of this agreement could be construed as referring to that sentence or contractual clause (for example, the arbitration agreement. B), but (i) if it contains relevance, plus ii) the likelihood that a party will claim that the agreement is only for one party, plus (iii) the likelihood that a court will accept that interpretation is far removed. Although it is superfluous, I personally prefer to use chords as a defined term. It is not mentioned in article 1. If you define “agreement” (and high value), you do so on the front page of the first page of the contract or in the recitals. Don`t set (or repeat or enter the defined scope) in the definition article. If something needs to be clarified, you do so in an interpretation section that also explains other references in the agreement or in a full clause of the contract in the other section at the end of the contract. All these languages are redundant.

Any exposure or schedule related to a contract would necessarily be mentioned in the contract text. This reference is in itself all that is necessary to make the exhibition or calendar part of the agreement. So do yourself a favor – drop all mentions of objects and calendars that are part of the agreement. This agreement (including all exhibitions and schedules) represents the entire agreement between the parties. Exhibitions and calendars are an integral part of this Agreement and are considered to be included by reference. To define the agreement? Many authors define the concept of this agreement (or, if necessary, this act, amendment, etc.) in the introductory clause. The definition of the concept as such is not necessary: the simple article used in this agreement (used throughout the document) indicates the need for a defined term, because to which other agreement would it be referred? I mention this point in the discussion around a reference to MSCD 9.12, but I have to add it to Chapter 5 (The Back of the Contract) in the next edition of MSCD.