The common law is seen as a conceptual agreement between the parties. This could explain why, as a good deal is “done”, draftsmen are used as lead-ins. The words strongly reflect the objective character of an agreement: separately and separately from the minds of the parties. It probably also explains why an entire contractual clause has a relatively strong effect (given the legal concept of the rule of parol proof, the explanation of which is not in the context of this book). Pragmatically simple. Whatever your preference, is done and entered are largely redundant. It is appropriate: Do not start the contract with an introductory line (which contains the title, date, names and details of the parties), but leave it open and simply use a title “THE PARTIES:” to do something like an agreement or agreement that gives both parties an advantage or advantage to make a victory/agreement/agreement, etc., safe or complete, Tom`s concern is that, because seizure means “enter”, it would be pointless to enter. But the best thing is not to be too literal when dealing with two-word verbs. For example, consider going back to what it means to “arrive unexpectedly,” as in “He showed up at my house tuesday morning.” I challenge you to arrive at this meaning by combining the respective meanings of linement and installation. I therefore understand the idea that entering into a contract might be superfluous. But English is full of legitimate two-word verbs. (Click here for an entire dictionary.) And it would never have occurred to me to say, “Acme and Widgetco have a merger agreement.” to come to an agreement on a subject on which people had different opinions, I was able to influence through popular usage, but Google offered me 143,000 moves for “a contract concluded” and 1,260,000 blows for “a contract concluded” to something. After much discussion or reflection on this issue Currently, my favorite redundant preposition is on in to hate on, as in “Stop Hating on NAFTA” (the title of a Washington Post commentary).
. . .