"For the avoidance of ..."

One of the strangest items that we lawyers end up inserting to our contracts, typically when we run out of all other options, are statements such as “for the avoidance of doubt” or “for the sake of clarity”. These expressions often find their way to Finnish agreements as well in form such as “selvyyden vuoksi”.

Yes - I know - sometimes this is done only to be able to include two alternative wording proposals for any one point, to get the deal done! Does it really clarify the matter or remove doubt, depends on how well the added clarification actually connects with the main clause.

A first version of a contract should never include such an expression! Contracts are made for understanding, not for interpretation! This was well covered by Ken Adams in his recent article (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/afraid-contract-interpretation-ken-adams).

Rather draft clearly and without a doubt! Continue rewriting, so that the clarification is not needed! If you need to insert examples, there are other ways of indicating that status with "e.g" or the notorious "inter alia".

For the avoidance of doubt, a good contract does not need such expressions, period! Comically, adding them before only some of the clauses could be seen as suggesting that the others, that are not qualified the same way, are there only "for the avoidance of clarity......"