IN WITNESS WHEREOF, parties who want to be required by law have encouraged their regular and duly empowered officers to export and deliver these gifts from the day and year they are written in the first place. 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[1] 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preamble, contracts should be waived not only because contracts are rarely to be attested, but also because they are outdated. Finally, these gifts are an obsolete alternative to this agreement. The phrase that day and year first written up is woolly. It is recommended to refer to the date of the signature (or the date of validity), but make sure that this date will only be displayed once in the document if you include something like the date of the first one.
If each signatory must write down the signing date, place the notation on each signature line. This is how this agreement was executed on the day it was written first. Witnesses (“where”) who cite a lot of cartoonists in the signature block? They are a ridiculous legacy of medieval common law culture. Release them in agreements (but you will need them in English law of `acts`). That`s a conclusion. All in all, you can waive the closing clause because it goes beyond a single line of text (visually separating). All he says is the obvious. The message was to visually convey the same logical and natural transition that the parties block, the title of the preamble and the words of concordance.