Similar to my previous post, large agreements sometimes include a statement that the obligations referring to a gender are not intended to exclude the other gender. This blog post addresses its redundancy…
Gender. The following phrase would allow a drafter to use gender-specific language in a contract without running the risk of a court holding that, for example, use of only masculine pronouns in that contract excludes corporations from the scope of certain provisions.
References to words importing one gender include both genders and the neuter.
You might agree that the phrase is rather funny and fairly redundant, in particular in commercial agreements where the parties are legal entities (referred to as “it”). I have the impression that Americans tend to avoid using one or another gender (e.g. avoid writing his or her, or he or she) and that similarly this clause safeguards against any suggestion that the contract drafter is to any extent preoccupied with one gender (i.e. not emancipated).
