Nadia Stephanov (asker) Feb 7, 2011:

@ Tony M Yes... right. You are right about this reading, it's about the only one that makes sense upon re-reading this point of the contract.

Tony M Feb 7, 2011:

@ Asker 1) No, 'the' is not necessary — it is very common in contractese to express it like this, where, for example 'Provider' has been defined in the preamble (XYZ Brewery, hereinafter referred to as 'Provider'). Imagine, for example, that the name of the Provider was actually 'John' — no def. or indef. article would be required.

2) I think you are mireading the text; my own (admittedly non-specialist!) interpretation is that anyone reading the Agreement must not take anything in the Agreement as implying that Provider is in fact doing business in country X, nor that there exists any other relationship between Provider and Company, apart from the specific arrangements in this Agreement. It's just a sort of get out saying "even if it might seem like we're doing it, we're not really" — for serious legal reasons, of course!

Nadia Stephanov (asker) Feb 7, 2011:

OK. Before the word "Provider" should stand "the" (and not "a") as the whole contract is about this particular Provider (of business). Suddenly I see some sense... la nuit porte conseil! What I understand now is that the Provider cannot do business in Country X (whilst he is doing business in Switzerland is implied) but also an agency, etc. also cannot do business in same COuntry X.

Tony M Feb 7, 2011:

No, I think it's OK I think it's just rather clumsy wording, in everyday language, one would expect 'constitute a..' followed by a countable noun, but this sort of thing is used a lot in 'contractese'

Nadia Stephanov (asker) Feb 6, 2011:

I also get a feeling something is missing Full sentence: "The parties acknowledge that nothing in this Agreement or the acts associated therewith shall constitute, jointly or severally, either (1) Provider doing business in Country X, or (2) an agency, employment, fiduciary, representation or other legal relation of the parties hereto other than independent joint-venture counter-parties."

Tony M Feb 6, 2011:

Simplified? It looks like you may have over-simplified!

On the face of it, there appears to be soemthing missing:

"nothing in this Agreement shall constitute [a commitment / undertaking / etc. to something]"

While (2) could conceivably follow on from 'constitute', 'Provider doing', though certainly not impossible, sits rather awkwardly — not least because the gerund 'doing business' really requires the possessive 'Provider's', which would at least make it read better.