02:49 Jun 1, 2011 |
English to Russian translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Law: Contract(s) / контракт | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Igor Antipin Russian Federation Local time: 14:19 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
3 +2 | нет ущерба - нет вины |
| ||
4 | "нет ущерба, нет преступления" |
|
Summary of reference entries provided | |||
---|---|---|---|
no harm - no foul |
|
Discussion entries: 4 | |
---|---|
"нет ущерба, нет преступления" Explanation: This might work. I know your contract is not a criminal matter, but the original is also applying a phrase from a different topic - in that case, from sports. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 26 mins (2011-06-01 03:16:43 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- At least, I think that's where the expression comes from, as in "No harm, no foul."... |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
нет ущерба - нет вины Explanation: Преступление - слишком сильно для контракта. Example sentence(s):
|
| |||||||||
Grading comment
| ||||||||||
|
14 hrs |
Reference: no harm - no foul Reference information: No Harm - No Foul: An Equitable View on Liquidated Damages for Delay ... A Case Study of LDs for Delay Assume the Owner wishes to construct a natural gas fired power plant and has decided to place two parallel prime contracts. The power plant contractor is responsible for building the combined cycle power plant, while the pipeline contractor is responsible for installing the natural gas pipeline that will supply gas to the project. What happens if the pipeline contractor is nine (9) months late in completing the natural gas pipeline, through no fault of the power plant contractor? At the same time, as depicted in the following graphic, the power plant contractor was one (1) month late in completing the power plant but the plant sat idle for 8 months waiting for the pipeline contractor to complete the pipeline to supply the gas necessary to start up the power plant. Is the Owner entitled to recover LDs from the power plant contractor for the one (1) month of delay? Many construction contracts would allow the Owner to assess the power plant contractor with one (1) month of LDs, as the power plant contractor was indeed late through no fault of the Owner or the pipeline contractor. Does this seem fair considering that the Owner could not have started the power plant due to the pipeline contractor's delay? In other words, the Owner would have still incurred delay damages due to the pipeline contractor's delay, even if the power plant contractor had completed on time. An Equitable Argument - No Harm No Foul An equity argument can be made in this case study that the Owner could not have started the plant even if the power plant contractor had completed on time due to a lack of natural gas resulting from the pipeline contractor's delay. Therefore, in this case study, an equity argument can be made that the Owner may not be entitled to recover damages from the power plant contractor because, through no fault of the power plant contractor, the Owner would not have been able to start the facility and sell electricity. Using this argument, there is no reason to penalize the power plant contractor. The Owner would regardless have suffered delay damages due to the pipeline contractor. This article is not intended to encourage the parties to a contract to disregard any contracts currently in force, but to stimulate debate in the construction law arena for a more equitable view of LDs for delay. A more equitable position could be for the parties to agree in the contract language that LDs for delay should only be assessed if the prime reason a project is delayed is due to the acts or omissions of the contractor. To this end, the parties may wish to include language in the contract similar to the following: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere in the contract or in law, the Owner and Contractor agree that no liquidated damages for delay shall become due and payable by Contractor to Owner unless the Owner could have completed the facility and started receiving beneficial use of said facility but for Contractor's delay." This no harm - no foul philosophy is similar to the theory of concurrent delay, which is recognized by the courts. In concurrent delay, performance is delayed by causes attributed to both the Contractor and the Owner, thus neither party can recover compensation for the delay. Reference: http://www.interface-consulting.com/en/art/7/ |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.