Glossary entry (derived from question below)
German term or phrase:
zum Schadensersatz verpflichtendes Verschulden
English translation:
fault, on the grounds of which damages may be claimed
Added to glossary by
Kim Metzger
May 9, 2005 17:22
19 yrs ago
1 viewer *
German term
Mexico
Committed to Quality and Service
Native in: English (Variant: US) 
Works in: German to English
zum Schadensersatz verpflichtendes Verschulden
German to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
court ruling civil law
From a court ruling in an insurance case. The meaning is clear but I'm having a hard time expressing it.
In Betracht kämen allenfalls Ansprüche der Klägerin wegen eines Verschuldens bei den Vertragsverhandlungen, so dass § 40 VVG keinesfalls zur Anwendung kommen könnte. Aber auch ein solches zum Schadensersatz verpflichtendes Verschulden ist für die Kammer nicht ersichtlich ...
At most, claims by the plaintiff with respect to culpability during the contract negotiations could be taken into consideration, so that § 40 VVG could not be applicable in any case. But even such culpability .... to claims for compensation ....
In Betracht kämen allenfalls Ansprüche der Klägerin wegen eines Verschuldens bei den Vertragsverhandlungen, so dass § 40 VVG keinesfalls zur Anwendung kommen könnte. Aber auch ein solches zum Schadensersatz verpflichtendes Verschulden ist für die Kammer nicht ersichtlich ...
At most, claims by the plaintiff with respect to culpability during the contract negotiations could be taken into consideration, so that § 40 VVG could not be applicable in any case. But even such culpability .... to claims for compensation ....
Proposed translations
6 mins
Derek Gill Franßen
Germany
Germany
Native in English
Specializes in field
Germany
German Attorney & University Lecturer
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, English, English to German, and 1 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
728
Selected
fault, on the grounds of which damages may be claimed
...a quick attempt.
:-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 mins (2005-05-09 17:31:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
You could also use \"culpability\" instead of \"fault\" here. :-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 mins (2005-05-09 17:33:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
...perhaps: \"culpability redressible by damages\"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 mins (2005-05-09 17:33:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
No, that last one wouldn\'t work - sorry. ;-)
:-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 mins (2005-05-09 17:31:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
You could also use \"culpability\" instead of \"fault\" here. :-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 mins (2005-05-09 17:33:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
...perhaps: \"culpability redressible by damages\"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 mins (2005-05-09 17:33:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
No, that last one wouldn\'t work - sorry. ;-)
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "My thanks to all of you for your excellent proposals. I found Derek's to be the most succinct."
28 mins
justifying a payment of compensation
...culpability justifying a payment of compensation is not ....
Might work!
Might work!
59 mins
silfilla
Specializes in field
culpability/fault that would give rise to claims for damages by definition (or: per se)
Schadensersatz=claim(s)for damages
*Nor is it evident to the Court that [Respondent] bears any fault that would give rise to claims for damages by definition/per se*
*Respondent* in brackets because it's an addition.
If I may make a suggestion: *Plantiff*, capitalized and without the article
:-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 21 mins (2005-05-09 18:44:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
*by definition* because claims for damages would be *mandatory* so to speak ... which leads to another suggestion:
*... fault that would give rise to claims for damages mandatorily*
(though I\'d prefer my first suggestion)
*Nor is it evident to the Court that [Respondent] bears any fault that would give rise to claims for damages by definition/per se*
*Respondent* in brackets because it's an addition.
If I may make a suggestion: *Plantiff*, capitalized and without the article
:-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 21 mins (2005-05-09 18:44:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
*by definition* because claims for damages would be *mandatory* so to speak ... which leads to another suggestion:
*... fault that would give rise to claims for damages mandatorily*
(though I\'d prefer my first suggestion)
Something went wrong...