A contract can, for example. B, refer to a term as defined in a law or other contract. If the definition is to be frozen as it stands at the time of the agreement, refer to the status or other agreement “as it is in force at the time of this agreement.” If the intention is to adopt future changes to the definition, it is preferable to refer to the status or other agreement “as it is in effect at any given time.” (Simply saying “in the modified version” is not used to specify the time you are referring to. Saying “in the modified version from time to time” would not be much improvement – from time to time means “from time to time,” whereas any particular change could immediately follow with another. And to say “as in fact” makes more sense than “in the amended version” because on the date in question, a status or contract may not have been changed.) And if, in the same agreement, you say that “Acme must comply with the Securities Act,” it would not be reasonable to interpret that in such a way that compliance with the Securities Act, as it was in force in 1933 or on the day of the agreement, would be respected, regardless of subsequent amendments to that obligation. Again, you cannot respect a version of a law that no longer exists. Specifically, what I have noticed is this contribution to the sentence as amended. This is a subject that I have happily avoided over the years. It is high time I tackled it. The amended sentence can be used in a contract to change references to statutes and other contracts. It occurs in different language categories of the contract.
For example, if in a contract you are referring to an element of a status or other contract, you make it clear whether you are referring to the status or other contract that is in effect at the time of the contract you are developing or how, at some point, it will be in effect in the future. But if you`re referring to a status or other agreement, you don`t follow the herd by continuing in the modified version. I did my Mike O`Sullivan analysis. He accepted that the change would be of no use in itself: “This is another manifestation of our fetishism of false precision. The premise – without “in the amended version,” we would refer to the original version of the statute – is so absurd that only one lawyer might think about it. The so-called smart design solution – which is automatically added to all statutory names “in the modified version” is not a solution, as you illustrate. But the amendment of the text makes no sense: respect for a statute or contract can only be measured by the statutes or the agreement, as it is then in force, even without modification. If, in an agreement of November 3, 2007, you say that Acme has complied with the Securities Act since January 1, 2000, it would be inappropriate to interpret this in such a way that Acme complied with the securities law throughout that period, not as it did then, but in 1933, or on the day of the agreement.