Which pronoun to use?

[Y-o-u-s-e-f]

Hello everyone,

I hope somebody can help with this:

In contract wording,you normally have 2 parties ( The First Party and The Second Party), be they individuals, companies, or governmental firms.

Which pronoun (he, they, it) would you use to refer to either party in a sentence like:-

- The second party is to carry out the tasks..... . (He / They/ It) is / are expected to finish those tasks in......

Expecting your welcomed input on this.

Thank you

[Y-o-u-s-e-f]

View= 91 (So far)

Replies= 0
__________

Either the question is not worth answering due extreme simplicity;

Or it is so difficult that it still requires time to be answered !

Or ...

[american]

Hello everyone,

I hope somebody can help with this:

In contract wording,you normally have 2 parties ( The First Party and The Second Party), be they individuals, companies, or governmental firms.

Which pronoun (he, they, it) would you use to refer to either party in a sentence like:-

- The second party is to carry out the tasks..... . (He / They/ It) is / are expected to finish those tasks in......

Expecting your welcomed input on this.

Thank you

A quick Google search (second party contract) reveals a number of actual contracts. In the two contracts I glanced at "it" was used to refer back to the "first/second/third... party".

[chester_100]

Hello everyone,

I hope somebody can help with this:

In contract wording,you normally have 2 parties ( The First Party and The Second Party), be they individuals, companies, or governmental firms.

Which pronoun (he, they, it) would you use to refer to either party in a sentence like:-

- The second party is to carry out the tasks..... . (He / They/ It) is / are expected to finish those tasks in......

Expecting your welcomed input on this.

Thank you

Well, logically, we can’t write “he”, because it’s extremely important to give the precisely exact information in a legal text. So, he will carry a special value, suggesting that the party must be a male.

In the same way, “they” is not a good choice either, because the party may be a single person.

It’s surprising that there aren’t any pronouns used for party in the two Civil Codes that I have read. Maybe it’s due to the nature of legal texts that require the writer to specify every bit of information in detail. Take a look at the followings:

-Casual speech: it’s in English.
-Legal: the deed has been drawn up in the English language.

So, we’ll have so much overlap in such texts.

The party in question, [the expression “in question” here functions like a descriptive phrase, specifying the party which is referred to]
The parties to the contract,
The second party … .

Good luck,

[Y-o-u-s-e-f]

A quick Google search (second party contract) reveals a number of actual contracts. In the two contracts I glanced at "it" was used to refer back to the "first/second/third... party".

To me at least, it won't sound right when it reads, for example:-

- It has to implement and supervise the project, and its executives are to follow up..... , where "it" and "its" refer to a first / second party

How can "it" the inanimate pronoun implement or supervise and possess executives?

american
Thanks after all.

[Y-o-u-s-e-f]

The party in question, [the expression “in question” here functions like a descriptive phrase, specifying the party which is referred to]
The parties to the contract,
The second party … .

Good luck,

Thank you chester_100, for your useful input.

A structure would look ill-formed if one keeps repeating the same phrase or pattern throughout the contract, or within the same paragraph, where coupling is inevitable at most times.

Considering the above examples, how can well-structured and grammatically correct sentences be formed?

[chester_100]

Thank you chester_100, for your useful input.

A structure would look ill-formed if one keeps repeating the same phrase or pattern throughout the contract, or within the same paragraph, where coupling is inevitable at most times.

Considering the above examples, how can well-structured and grammatically correct sentences be formed?

Yes! To establish cohesion in a text, it’s necessary to use appropriate pronouns. By the way, cohesion (=the quality of a well-structured text) is not just a matter of grammar, but also discourse analysis.

As I said, a legal text is a different case.
For example, I went through the same Civil Codes, perusing their “on divorce” sections.
I never came a across a pronoun in the texts. The words “husband” and “wife” were repeated just in every Article. The same was true with “the principle” and “the attorney”.

However, believing that it hurts the naturalness of a text to make it overflowed with already mentioned information, I’d suggest he wherever it doesn’t imply “a male person”.
In the following sentences, we don’t have any other choice but to use a pronoun. These are authentic excerpts:

• …if the principal himself sells the …. [himself here means: “on his own initiative ]

• …if the agent has resigned, he will … . [There’s no other choice here]

And one more thing: in a contract, it’ll be revealed who the parties are. So, depending on the party’s gender, one can choose the suitable pronoun:

Principle: Mary, a forty-year old woman.

In the contract:

“The principal, due to the nature of her age, has decided to … .”



Good luck,

[Y-o-u-s-e-f]

I’d suggest he wherever it doesn’t imply “a male person”.
In the following sentences, we don’t have any other choice but to use a pronoun. These are authentic excerpts:

• …if the principal himself sells the …. [himself here means: “on his own initiative ]

• …if the agent has resigned, he will … . [There’s no other choice here]

Oh yes, I'd agree with such a claim, considering the "he" as a collective part, which could apply to either party, no matter what sex, entity...etc. it might be.

Besides, and where discourse analysis is concerned, your argument seems to be in line with Paul Grice's prescribed "four maxims". Further to this, and pending your approval, perhaps we can just define this usage of the collective "he" pronoun as the "Entity deixis". This may stimulate a native speaker linguist/grammarian/lawyer to address this issue.
____________

chester_100,

Thank you very much indeed. You've been very helpful.

[Anglika]

Hello everyone,

I hope somebody can help with this:

In contract wording,you normally have 2 parties ( The First Party and The Second Party), be they individuals, companies, or governmental firms.

Which pronoun (he, they, it) would you use to refer to either party in a sentence like:-

- The second party is to carry out the tasks..... . (He / They/ It) is / are expected to finish those tasks in......

Expecting your welcomed input on this.

Thank you

Avoid the problem altogether by writing "The second party is to carry out the [contracted/specified] tasks and is expected to finish...."

[Y-o-u-s-e-f]

Avoid the problem altogether by writing "The second party is to carry out the [contracted/specified] tasks and is expected to finish...."

If it were the only occurrence of "The Second / First Party" in one Article, then your suggested formation is favourable. But the problem lies where you have to refer to the same party within the same article or paragraph as quoted in chester_100's examples.

Thanks Anglika