Yesterday one of my consulting clients introduced me to shall not be concerned to see (or enquire into). My response was, You cannot be serious. The components of this usage have no bearing on the meaning sought to be conveyed.
Here are some instances I found roaming the post-apocalyptic EDGAR landscape:
Payment in accordance with this clause shall be a good and valid discharge of the Buyer’s obligation to pay the sum in question and the Buyer shall not be concerned to see the application of the monies so paid.
… and the receipt of each such amount in the Designated Account shall be an absolute discharge to the Purchaser of the obligation to pay such amount and the Purchaser shall not be concerned to see to the application of any such amount thereafter.
The Guarantee Beneficiaries shall not be concerned to see or enquire into the powers of the Borrower, any other Material Subsidiary or any of their directors, officers or agents acting or purporting to act on their behalf …
The Borrowers shall not be concerned to enquire as to whether any instructions have been given to the Facility Agent as required by this agreement or as to the terms of any such instructions.
Use of enquire instead of inquire is a clue as to the origin of shall not be concerned to see: evidently it’s an English creation! It serves as a reminder that although the English legal profession has in general managed to purge contracts of more witless usages than we in the United States have, they still have work to do. (Also, there’s the awkward business of endeavours, which I discuss here.)
Saying that Acme shall not be concerned to see X serves to have Acme acknowledge that it won’t have any basis for asserting X. A sensible alternative would be using will not be required to. For example, the first example above could be rewritten to say The Sellers will not be required to show how they applied the amount paid. But it might be that the issue in question is sufficiently obvious that you can omit it entirely.