The date from which such a version, value or change will come into effect should be based on the definition or context of the body of the text. The addition from time to time specifies that the version, value or change in effect at a delivery or delivery date and not on the effective date of the agreement should apply. Another principle of good practice that I see is that you should list what might be overlooked when implementing the agreement or whether there is potential uncertainty as to the point covered. For example, it would be entirely appropriate to agree that the seller must sell and deliver all the fruit he grows for cooking purposes, including tomatoes. Finally, one might think that a tomato is not a fruit (which is not true: it is). Terms that are somewhat characteristic of certain types of agreements often receive the same defined term. For example, an asset forr-asset contract is liabilities, receivables, excluded assets, contracts and liabilities. In credit contracts, debt, maturity date, guarantors and majority lenders would be examples. The advantage of using these defined terms is that an experienced reader immediately understands what is being referred to without having to go to the definition article each time.

If there is no such term of art, choose a defined term that will help the reader by reporting what it means. There is no reference to the «party» who has the right to terminate the contract (although it is implicit that the right belongs to the employer). The sentence can be written in Plain English avoiding the passive as follows: Another example of tautology is the phrase «included, but not limited to». The phrase «but not limited to» is superfluous because «including» indicates a non-exhaustive list. However, this phrase is very common in treaties where the law in force is English or American law, as surprisingly, the courts in those countries have interpreted «including» as a reference to an exhaustive list. As a result, contract authors will attempt to add the words «but not limited to» to ensure that they refer to a non-exhaustive list, but this can create confusion for readers who do not know the English or American context. Clearly, a dividend distribution by a subsidiary to its parent company is not a parent company`s interest in the subsidiary. What does the expression mean? A party may argue that the payment of cash dividends is prohibited. If that is correct, what about the payment of share dividends? At the same time, a reasonable argument would be that the payment of dividends does not fall under the investment ban, that the reference to these dividends was made in error in the underlined language and should not have any effect. What is the correct interpretation? You will probably need a lot more information to understand the mutual expectations and agreement that the parties intend to make.