What I mean is that there are so many possible variations of what the parties really want when they think there are really no successors and allocation clauses for the boiler platform. And on the other hand, sometimes it is not justified to scatter with these details which, no doubt by insisting, will not matter. But if something unexpected happens, and the lawyer only went with « boilerplate, » or his client might not like the result. And if the lawyer first peppers the client with « What if it would be » and the costs of writing the contract degenerate or complicate or stack the negotiations with the other party, his client also does not like it. That is why the practice of law is precisely that, a practice, not a science. This clause is intended to regulate the rule of what happens when the parties argue later in the future if a significant part of the agreement is not included in the written contract. Specifically, the entire agreement/integration clause comes into play (if the contract has one), when the parties argue in court over the terms of the agreement (or argue over who they think they will win if there is legal action). In these disputes, one side is generally happier with what the Treaty literally says, while the other is not so happy – either because they did not read and negotiated the draft contract carefully before they signed, or because they could never imagine the circumstances that had now emerged from the quarrel. As a result, the judge or jury will decide for themselves only after the contract has been read or if the judge or jury will also hear statements about what the parties intended to be part of the agreement, even if it is not in the written contract. Following the resignation of an outgoing administrative officer as an administrative officer, the provisions of this section 9 and Section 10.5 will continue to be invoked in his favour [please read that he is still an administrative officer for the purposes of the protection afforded to the administrative officer in accordance with this section 9 and Section 10.5 above]. The answer is that if one of the parties is a person, the term « successor » has no place.