&quot;Be to verb&quot; in contract
<p>This is a provision in  CONTRACT FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
SALE OF GOODS</p>
<blockquote>
<ol start="12">
<li>Effects of avoidance in general</li>
</ol>
<p>12.1 Avoidance of this contract releases both parties from their obligation to effect and to receive future performance, subject to any damages that may be due.</p>
<p>12.2 Avoidance of this contract does not preclude a claim for damages for non-performance.</p>
<p>12.3 Avoidance of this contract does not affect any provision in this contract for the settlement of disputes or any other term of this contract that <strong>is to operate</strong> even after avoidance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why did they use <strong>is to verb</strong> structure here to refer to the future? Is it because of the legalese language style?</p>

<p>It gets much clearer if you cut the sentence to the actual operative sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>12.3 <strong>Avoidance of this contract does not affect</strong> any provision in this contract for the settlement of disputes or <strong>any other term of this contract that is to operate even after avoidance</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The sentence explains which provisions are not affected by avoidance: those that go for settlement (normal stance) or any other term that is still operating when avoidance takes place. <a href="https://www.gymglish.com/en/gymglish/english-grammar/is-to-do-something" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Is to do</em> is a normal grammatical construction.</a></p>
<p>The &quot;is to do&quot; in this case can be grammatically replaced by &quot;which will&quot; and keep the meaning: Avoidance of this contract does not affect any other term of this contract which will operate even after avoidance.</p>
<p>In other words, the term 12.3 is a typical severing clause, pointing out that certain other clauses (which will point this out) won't be stopped from operation by avoidance.</p>

contract-law international legal-terms sale-of-goods