hereinafter referred to as

[pinkie9]

Hello.

Could anyone please tell me whether the following usage of "hereinafter..." is correct?

(1) ABC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Party A") shall ...
(2) ABC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter as "Party A") shall ...
(3) ABC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, "Party A") shall ...

I understand (1) is correct.
I have seen (2) and (3) and I wondered if they are correct.

 

[5jj]

Hello.

Could anyone please tell me whether the following usage of "hereinafter..." is correct?

(1) ABC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Party A") shall ...
(2) ABC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter as "Party A") shall ...
(3) ABC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, "Party A") shall ...

I understand (1) is correct.
I have seen (2) and (3) and I wondered if they are correct.

#1 is the normal usage. #2 appears wrong. #3 seems fine to me, but I don't know how a lawyer would view it. This is an important point, as the word hereinafter is used almost exclusively by lawyers.

 

[pinkie9]

Thank you so much.
If it is grammaticaly fine, it is enough for me, for now. :-D

 

[Neillythere]

Hi Pinkie9
As a retired major international contracts specialist, I would agree with fivejedjon, with the rider that 2) could potentially be acceptable in the case of Party B, if preceded by 1) for Party A, with the "referred to" being omitted to avoid duplicate wording.
Hope this helps
Best regards
NT

 

[pinkie9]

Now I understand very well. Thank you so much!

(I learned a new word "rider". :-D)

 

[5jj]

Now I understand very well. Thank you so much!

(I learned a new word "rider". :-D)

And note that you learnt* it from a retired major international contracts specialist. It's not a word that you will often hear in everyday conversation.

~ both learned and learnt are acceptable in BrE. I believe the former is preferred in AmE; I use the latter.

 

[BobK]

#1 is the normal usage. #2 appears wrong. #3 seems fine to me, but I don't know how a lawyer would view it. This is an important point, as the word hereinafter is used almost exclusively by lawyers.

:up:

Lawyers don't like commas because in a document that has commas their presence or absence can be argued to change intentions in crucial ways. I don't see what difference it could make in sentence 3, but they don't like precedents either!

b

 

[pinkie9]

Thank you again.
What if the situation is not legal?

For example,

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (hereinafter "UNESCO") is ...:?:

 

[BobK]

Thank you again.
What if the situation is not legal?

For example,

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (hereinafter "UNESCO") is ...:?:

:up: That's fine, although many readers would prefer to see it without 'hereinafter' - fivejedjon was simply saying that lawyers [no doubt because they deal with documents and have to be clear about meanings of words used in those documents - BobK] are typical and common users of the word.

b