[article] The Ordering Party vs Ordering Party

White Nyan Cat

Member
Polish - Poland
I was wondering if it is my error to put an article before "Ordering Party", and, similarly, before all and every "Manager", "Contractor", and "Subcontractor". Those names are written with their first letters capitalized because they are used in agreements and their nature requires me to do so.

Have a look:
If [the] Ordering Party fails to notify the Contractor within 7 days of receipt of the notification, the Contractor shall start the procedure without such a notification.

The Ordering Party is a defined party to an agreement. The same goes with the Manager, the Contractor, and the Subcontractor. They are all defined. Should I leave out the article or can I keep adding it?
 
  • Retired-teacher

    Senior Member
    British English
    It should certainly be included in each case in the sentence you provide. I think that you should include "the" as a general rule.
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    All singular, countable nouns should be qualified by a determiner - a/an, the, any, my, their, this, that, etc.
     

    White Nyan Cat

    Member
    Polish - Poland
    I asked because I have seen the article omitted so many times in American and British agreements that my brain freezes.
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    Those names are written with their first letters capitalized because they are used in agreements and their nature requires me to do so.
    I would be surprised if that were the case and that capitalisation were truly required - the agreement/contract should have definitions of the main nouns used where those nouns have a meaning that is specific to the contract.
    I asked because I have seen the article omitted so many times in American and British agreements that my brain freezes.
    Do you have any examples?
     

    White Nyan Cat

    Member
    Polish - Poland
    @PaulQ Well, I am a lawyer in a way... Sometimes there are multiple contractors, managers, and subcontractors, and this one letter does make a difference.
    For example: XYZ Company, hereinafter referred to as "the Manager", undertakes to cooperate with managers at BLA Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Subcontractor"). The Subcontractor may subcontract further agreements with a subcontractor only after obtaining the Manager's approval.
    That one letter matters sometimes.
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    Fair enough. The distinction seems then to be between "the Manager" as a name/proper noun with a specific identity/role, and "the manager" as a general rank. With such speciaised use, the word rarely reaches the level of a name/proper noun (which would not require a determiner) but falls into the category of "unique/specific item" that does require a determiner - the Eiffel Tower; the White House; The Queen, etc.

    However, I too have acted as a lawyer in a way, and know the difficulties that this style (common words distinguished only by capital letters) presents in court, or over a phone, when the distinction cannot be made and equivocation, misunderstandings and ambiguity occur.

    The West London Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as "WLCC", undertakes to cooperate with managers at the subcontractor, Bialystok Lighting Alliance Company (hereinafter referred to as "BLAC"). BLAC may subcontract further agreements with a subcontractor only after obtaining the approval of WLCC.
     

    White Nyan Cat

    Member
    Polish - Poland
    @PaulQ According to one of my books, written by a native speaker on Polish-English translation, the author states:
    Company - the definite article is omitted:
    (...) when the name includes the word Company preceded by a place name or a personal name: e.g. "London Marine Oil Company undertakes to...".

    But you wrote: The West London Construction Company. Do we have that "the" in place due to the modifier "West"?

    The acronyms I used, they were just random ones (intended to replace proper personal names, therefore no article).
     

    Glenfarclas

    Senior Member
    English (American)
    I asked because I have seen the article omitted so many times in American and British agreements that my brain freezes.
    You are correct that it is very common in contracts to omit articles and other determiners for capitalized, defined nouns (especially terms for the parties), such as: "Licensee shall pay 15% of Gross Profits to Licensor."

    It is not necessary to omit such articles. Some drafters (as well as many style guides) prefer to include them: "The Licensee shall pay 15% of its Gross Profits to the Licensor." This a question of style, not grammar.
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    But you wrote: The West London Construction Company.
    Yes, that is its name, like "The Times" or "The Wall Street Journal".

    Even if it were not, "the" can be used as "company" is a singular countable noun and "All singular, countable nouns should be qualified by a determiner - a/an, the, any, my, their, this, that, etc." See #3. The inclusion or omission is optional not mandatory.

    As Glenfarcas points out - you are discussing style and not grammar. I suspect that you are also discussing AE not BE, in the latter, I would find "Licensee shall pay 15% of Gross Profits to Licensor." strange, awkward, and pointless and, taking Glenfarcas's suggestion, place "the" before each noun/noun phrase: "The licensee shall pay 15% of the/its gross profits to the licensor."
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top