In other words, if you use between or under has no influence on meaning or legibility, it would not be helpful to make a question of that. Use between your designs. If a traditionalist insists because there are more than two parties, approving this change would be a painless concession. If the other page presents you with a project that is used under, the request it is modified would probably antagonize it. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Article on agreement Middle English agreement, borrowed from the Anglo-French agreement, approval, of the agreement “please, okay” – -ment Note: According to common law, the agreement is a necessary element of a valid contract. Under the Single Code of Trade, paragraph 1-201 (3), the agreement is the good deal of the contracting parties, as they are explicitly presented by their language or implicitly by other circumstances (as transactions). I was easily surprised to find that I apparently never wrote anything on this blog on which I should use, enter or below, if I list the parties to a contract, in the introductory clause or elsewhere. Here`s what MSCD 2.46-48 has to say: It is generally accepted that, while we are talking about a contract between two parties, the correct preposition in the case of a contract with more than two parties is below. But according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is not only permissible, but in fact preferable to use between more than two parts.
The general recognition of the unnecessary distinction between the two and between the two is a good indication of the state of the traditional conventional language. In any case, use as a preposition in the introductory clause and not under or a stupid verse (see 1.42) as little by little. If you think that coming in and below is a rewarding use of time by anyone, you are in the heavy need of purdoctrination. Thank you for showing up in 14 Five Bell Lane, Nether Wallop, Hampshire, England, with a tin leaf hat on your head, ring the doorbell and say, “I`m here to learn more about active drawing.” These examples are automatically selected from different online sources of information to reflect the current use of the word “agreement.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not reflect the views of Merriam-Webster or its publishers. Send us comments. For the purposes of implementing this agreement with respect to matters relating to non-contracting parties to NATO SOFA, the provisions of NATO SOFA that provide for the filing of applications or the deferment of disputes to the North Atlantic Council, the President of the North Atlantic Council or an arbitrator , should be construed as requiring the parties concerned to negotiate with each other without retracting themselves outside the jurisdiction. Unless the contrary provision of this agreement and an additional protocol for its own contracting parties, all States Parties to this agreement apply the provisions of the agreement between the contracting parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Status of their Armed Forces, concluded in London on 19 June 1951, referred to as “NATO SOFA”, as if all the States Parties to the current agreement were parties to the NATO SOFA.