But in addition to using procure to mean “get,” these contracts reflect another use of the word, and it is this use that interests me. It is procure, followed by an abstract clause or name, where procure means “cause”. I can`t find anything that recommends either variant of this usage, as it seems archaic and bears no resemblance to the use of Procure in standard English, not even a stuffy version of standard English. I suggest that using the cause would be a big improvement instead. CPPIB will do its best to provide affected proposed purchasers with additional information on .. I was a little embarrassed by the occasional phrase “ask A to do X”. However, I once had an English client who insisted, FWIW. I also vote for a “cause” myself. In reading these contracts, I was particularly concerned that the Australian legal definition of the term might provide some leeway, so that a person in charge of “procurement” and who did his best (but ultimately failed to get what was required for procurement) could not cause a breach. I seem to recall a contract drafted by a large, reputable company that included a defined term for “procurement” that effectively transformed the meaning into “shall do its best,” which, given its predominant use in the contract, really undermined a number of agreements that used the term “procurement.” Note that commentator Adrian is familiar with the cause as an alternative to supply. This suggests that the word actually has no clear meaning. The term “supply,” like the term “ensure” or “guarantee,” imposes a strict obligation, so failure to guarantee the outcome is a breach. As Justice Peter Smith said in Nearfield Ltd v.
Lincoln Nominees Ltd et al.: The parties agree to use all reasonable efforts to ensure that New Lion fulfills its obligations under the Lion Program and the AuSelect Program in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions hereof. CPPIB pays (or arranges for payment) 70% of the costs of investor monitoring. If “procurement” is meant “will result in something being done” (not “will make every effort possible” as mentioned in a comment above), then make sure that this purpose is exactly served and easier to understand. I do not know if it goes beyond “supply” to offer a guarantee. “. The normal meaning of the word “contracting” is to “see”. Nglish: Translation of the mission for Spanish speakers The Parties shall ensure that . New Lion will provide each AuSelect Program Participant with consideration of the AuSelect Program on the implementation date in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement, the AuSelect Program, and the New Lion Deed Survey. I read a contract that repeatedly uses the word “will ensure that”, for example, “To ensure that transactions are processed within 10 days”; B will ensure that requests are processed within 3 working days.” The use of “proure that” makes no sense in this context. “Insure” is so much simpler and more straightforward.
If something really needs to be purchased, then it should be in the contract: “A will get an obligation/assurance that transactions will be processed…” ». According to 41 U.S.CS § 403, contracting includes “all stages of the process of acquiring goods or services, beginning with the process of determining the need for goods or services and ending with the conclusion and conclusion of a contract.” In criminal law and similar usage elsewhere, the term “procuring” means initiating proceedings to initiate proceedings; Incite; invent, induce, provoke or provoke. See U. S. v. Wilson, 28 Fed. Cas. 710; Gore v. Lloyd, 12 Mees. and W.
4S0; Marcus v. Bernstein, 117 N. C. 31, 23 S. E. 38; Rosenbarger v. Staat, 154 Ind. 425, 56 N. E. 914; Lang v. Staat, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N.
W. 310. As an Australian writer with a usual preference for “procuring”, I understand your point of view. “Should cause” is less archaic and, on that basis, a preferable alternative. Of course, your average draftsman won`t be put off by the formality, so you get quite a few contracts. It appears in 1,853 contracts filed in the SEC`s Edgar System in the last six months. The company . to obtain the preparation from the service provider. an assessment in accordance with this point 12.5 …
The only time procurement could make sense is when there is something that actually needs to be purchased (from a subsidiary, etc., as you say), such as a consent form or affidavit. It can also be rephrased as “cause” (or “obtained”), but “procurement” in this case seems perfectly clear where the obligation lies: anything that is not consent is a violation. And here are some examples of procurement and the abstract name of another Australian contract (emphasis added): I have also recently read contracts prepared by Australia and have been baffled by the use of the word “procure”. I`ve been reading Canadian treaties for 25 years and I don`t remember ever seeing that in Canada – so Canada is a Commonwealth country that you can cross off as a user of that term. Robert: So procurement is a standard of effort? But it is not clear what exactly this standard is? It sounds like a mess; How can you expect readers to make sense of it? In particular, this use of Procure frequently appears in the publicly available Australian contracts that I reviewed prior to my upcoming seminars in Australia. Here are examples of procurement as well as this clause of one of these Australian treaties (emphasis added): Writers from Commonwealth countries love this use of procurement. (My brief search for Edgar only found him in contracts related to operations outside the United States.) Procure, like many other English words, has a split personality.
