It is significant that, if it is found that the execution took place in accordance with these provisions, the presumptions of regular enforcement in Ss 128 and 129 (6) of the Corporations Act apply (unless a consideration knows or suspects that the agreement was not properly executed). As stated in the “Execution of Acts” section, these presumptions are of great value to a counterparty and, in practice, ensure that a counterparty insists that an agreement be executed by a company under s 127(2) and 127(2) (b) or, by other means, under S 127 (1) by the signing of two directors, a director and a business secretary or the director and secretary of a company (discussed later in the Agreement). As in the case of the implementation of an agreement by establishing the common seal of a company (see the previous discussion in this section “Execution of Agreements,” the execution of an agreement under s 127(a) (a) and 127(1)) (b): subject to trust evidence that is given by another indication, individual agents will execute agreements similar to those of individuals in general. Similarly, company agents will execute agreements similar to those of companies in general. “Split executions” should be avoided As mentioned in the “Execution of Acts” section of this application, a “split version” refers to two officers who sign different physical copies of the same contract. Typically, two contractual contracts are prepared for execution, one for the customer and the other for the supplier. In addition, one party may retain the contract executed and issue certified copies in accordance with the other party, thus avoiding potential errors in the preparation of two execution contracts. The partnership laws of each state and territory allow a single partner to sign, in most cases, agreements in the name of partnership. However, it is important to review the partnership agreement if there is one. It may limit each partner`s ability to implement agreements that bind the entire partnership. However, in this case, the contracting party generally requires proof that the Board`s decision has been adopted, since the legal presumptions regarding the correct enforcement of an agreement by a person in authority (s 129 of the Corporations Act) do not apply to execution according to S 126. In practice, a counterparty may also simply insist that the execution be carried out in 127 instead of 126.