Repeating a clause using the value of a repeating-list-number-datafield

Clause9 Drafting Clauses
1

Clause-ID #1007890

Hi everyone, here is my situation:

I have a binder that creates a set of n Power of Attorneys (PoAs) related to one company for n amount of people. The PoA-Document is set to repeat within the binder for the amount of #party^names used.

image
image931×242 4.65 KB

#party^names is a repeating-list-text-datafield. So, if I have 5 party names, the binder will generate 5 PoAs, one for each party.

In each iteration of the repeated PoA-Document, there is a signature clause:

image
image311×513 7.62 KB

Not every document needs the same amount of signatories. It’s possible that the first document in the binder has 1 signatory, the second 2, the third one 1, the fourth 3, etc.

I have not been able to achieve this granularity.

  • If I set the Signature-Block to repeat based on a (non-repeating) number-datafield, it will display the block n times, every time, where n is the value entered. I don’t want this.

Because the repeated-clause is part of a repeating document, I want to thus use a repeating-list-datafield that asks for signatories amount. My idea was to use the numbers type, e.g. entering #signatories^amount as a list of 5 entries:

1, 2, 1, 3, 1

would lead the first document to have 1 block, the second 2, the third 1 block again, the fourth 3, etc.

  • However, the repeating-clause signature block is not being repeated for the value of the entry at the current index of the repeating list (such as it would display were I to show the value of the repeating-number-datafield within the repeated document).

  • Instead, the signature block is repeated for the total number of entries within the repeating-list-datafield. For the above example, setting the signature-clause to repeat for #signatories^amount will show 5 signature blocks in every one of the 5 documents, irrespective of the values of the numbers.

For me, I was expecting that setting a clause to repeat on a repeating-list-number-datafield would repeat the clause for the value at the current index, instead of the total length.

Here is my current clause, as you can see I have just hard-coded the list to two entries:

image
image829×303 17.4 KB

I know this is a very niche topic, but since I have spent quiet some time thinking about this I would appreciate any insights.

Thanks!
Kai

2

Hi Kai,

What you are basically trying to achieve is having a repeating clause inside of a repeating document (a nested repeat). As you experience, Clause9 is currently not really built to accomodate this. That is not to say that (I hope) we can achieve something close to what you are trying to build here.

If your concern is generating enough signature blocks inside of each repeating document, the below code snippet should work:

Repeat: 

@for(?X, @range(1, @get(#concept^_repeating-number, @index)), @ROW)

ROW =
|| Place: @placeholder("place") ||
|| Signatory: @placeholder("signatory") ||

This uses the for-loops functionality to create a new repeating mechanism inside of a clause/document that already repeats and will create the right number of signature blocks inside each repeating document. The obvious disadvantage is that these signature blocks cannot be completed inside of a questionnaire. They are just static pieces of text.

If you would need to also complete the relevant signatory information in the Q&A itself, you would have to resort to using @comma-split as follows:

@for(?X, @comma-split(#concept^signatory-names), @ROW)

ROW =
|| Place: @get(@comma-split(#concept^signature-place), ?INDEX)   ||
|| Signatory: ?X ||

Then each entry into the signatory name & signature place datafields would need to contain a comma-separated list for the relevant subdocument. For example:

  • POA #1:

#concept^signatory-names: Kai Kraus, Robbert Jacobs
#concept^signature-places: Frankfurt, Brussels

This will generate the first POA with signature blocks for Kai Kraus signing in Frankfurt and Robbert Jacobs signing in Brussels.

  • POA #2:

#concept^signatory-names: Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Big Smurf
#concept^signature-places: Springfield, Quahog, Smurftown

This will generate the second POA with signature blocks for Homer Simpson signing in Springfield, Peter Griffin signing in Quahog and Big Smurf signing in Smurftown.

As you can see, there is no straightforward way of having repeating information inside of another repeating block but the above suggestions get you close to the same result, if accompanied by some practical downsides.

3

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation! Will for sure try this out.