(c) has been advised by [PARTY A] and has had sufficient opportunities to consult with counsel of his or her choice with respect to this agreement and counsel for counsel. [PARTY A] advised [PARTY B] to review this agreement prior to signing this agreement with counsel of its choice, and [PARTY B] had a reasonable period of time to do so. It is an acknowledgement that the person had the opportunity to verify the agreement with a lawyer, not that he or she did. (d) knowingly and voluntarily accepts all the terms of this Agreement, without undue coercion, coercion or influence by [PARTY A], its representatives or any other person, and agrees to be legally bound by such terms. However, this can be misinterpreted, which I have recently understood. There is a big difference between “Yes, I understand you” and “Yes, I agree with you.” This is the difference between recognition and agreement. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement does not replace, modify or modify the terms of stock options that Acme granted to the Executive prior to the date of this Agreement. If one party to the agreement is a lawyer, its rules of professional conduct may require that the other party be effectively advised by an independent lawyer. (See, for example, the rules applicable to lawyers in Ontario.) 1. Recognition of contractual conditions. Prior to the signing of this Agreement, clause [PART B] The clause for recognition of contractual terms (or verification by a lawyer or independent legal consultant) contains a confirmation from a person party to the agreement, that he or she has read and understood the agreement, that he or she has had the opportunity to verify the agreement with independent counsel and that he or she has signed the agreement voluntarily. An alternative to Party X`s acknowledges that a fact alleged by Party Y is just confirms that that fact is included in the recitals.
If the circumstance in question related to the context of the concentration, it would certainly be part of the recitals. However, if this fact is particularly important, it may be preferable to reinforce this importance by recognizing this fact in the text of the treaty by one or more parties. . Here are three examples of the appropriate use of recognition: in MSCD, I note that one of the categories of the contractual language is the language of the service which serves to recall the actions of the parties that are at the same time as the signing of the contract. I don`t expect this reassessment to shake anyone`s world, but I`m glad I invented it, albeit belatedly. The language of representation, as it is currently conceived, has always seemed a bit fallacious to me. Each shareholder acknowledges that the merger shares have not been registered under the Securities Act and are issued under a registration waiver. What can we understand? And accept? They essentially perform the same function as recognition, so I agree with the first general rule of the formulation – be consistent! – proposes that you do not give it up in favour of recognition. . .