Yeah, that was my first thought. But I'm editing language in an agreement that refers to everything in terms of "notice," so I thought I might stay consistent by using a variation on that term. I hear litigation attorneys in the office talking about having "noticed" an opposing party (meaning they served notice), but I think that may just be slang, in which case I don't want to use it. I actually have "served" as a place holder. Maybe I'll just leave it that way. I think the meaning is certainly clear.
That would work, but I'm leaning toward just using served. It's already such a wordy clause--goes on for almost half a page--that I hate to use three words (party who received notice) when one would do (party served). Thanks, CF!
