Q:

Is this shorter phrase awkward?

In legalese, while describing a party which loses the capacity to perform certain obligation, is it awkward to say "During the course of the calamity, the performance incapacitated (or disabled) party shall ..." instead of "During the course of the calamity, the party who is incapacitated by the said event to perform the obligation, shall…"? I would be happy to know if there are better ways to convey the meaning succinctly.

A:

Legalese often uses defined terms to make an initially long term more succinct. The definition is offered the first time the concept is used and is usually thereafter capitalized.

During the course of the calamity, the party who is incapacitated by the said event to perform the obligation (the "Incapacitated Party"), shall ...   

When Incapacitated Party next appears, the reader would understand it to mean the entire phrase.
The use of incapacitated or disabled without further explanation that it is a result of a particular calamity that is the subject of the legal document might be misread to mean a person who was incapacitated or disabled because of some other, unrelated event.

