For clarity

< Previous | Next >

Van Veen

Member
Russian
Hello all,

English legalese uses the expression for clarity in a way that always makes me think there is something missing in a sentence.

For example:

For clarity, the seller shall comply with local and state ordinances unless parties agree to do otherwise.
For clarity the Buyer shall not be entitled to refuse delivery on account of delay, howsoever caused.


To illustrate my point, I have supplied in brackets what I think is missing in these sentences:

For clarity, [it must be understood that] the seller shall comply with local and state ordinances unless parties agree to do otherwise.
For clarity [it must be noted that] the Buyer shall not be entitled to refuse delivery on account of delay, howsoever caused.


In the first sentence, the seller is not likely to comply with orders just for the sake of clarity, but the sentence suggests that that is what he or she must do.
Is this usage incorrect or is it just an idiomatic way of using this expression?

Thank you!
 
  • < Previous | Next >
    Top