In Part 1, I discussed 'for the avoidance of doubt'. This time up it is 'subject to'.

These two words start more fights than you might expect. 'Subject to' is not really the problem. What the drafter leaves out after it is. Part of the trouble is that 'subject to' does at least two different jobs.

For more than 25 years, I have been in and around commercial disputes, which means I am often left to interpret a contract after it has failed. One phrase grates more than any other: 'for the avoidance of doubt'.

My objection is not stylistic. They hint that what came before was somehow in doubt, which can subtly change how the clause reads as a whole. They can also let the drafter hide a problem rather than fix it, creating unnecessary risk for their client.