This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
zone de circulation
ensemble statorique
This question was closed without grading. Reason: No acceptable answer
Jun 18, 2011 17:27
12 yrs ago
39 viewers *
French term

la fin de non-recevoir pour défaut de qualité dans leur chef

French to English Law/Patents Law (general) Litigation
can anyone help me with the meaning of this phrase?? It is part of the opening section of a response to a summons.

thank you!

Les Liquidateurs demandent acte qu'ils soulèvent in limine litis, et donc avant toute défense au fond, la nullité, sinon l'irrecevabilité, sinon la fin de non-recevoir pour défaut de qualité dans leur chef.
Proposed translations (English)
4 non-admissibility on account of their lack of legal capacity
4 raise, in their argument, the inability of [name party] to seek the remedy due to lack of capacity
3 -3 a blunt refusal because of their boss's lack of qualifications
Change log

Jun 18, 2011 19:13: AllegroTrans changed "Field (specific)" from "Finance (general)" to "Law (general)" , "Field (write-in)" from "peace versus war" to "Litigation"

Jun 19, 2011 03:51: cc in nyc changed "Level" from "Non-PRO" to "PRO"

Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

PRO (3): Laura Elvin, AllegroTrans, cc in nyc

When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.

How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:

An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)

A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).

Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.

When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.

* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.

Discussion

Fr-EnD Jun 19, 2011:
Yes confusion, AllegroTrans I encourage everyone to read the notes to my answer. I am not married to the wording I've chosen but, with respect, I do think the distinctions and meanings I'm trying to provide are valid.
AllegroTrans Jun 19, 2011:
No confusion Fr-EnD The Court has an inherent power to strike out a claim without hearing the parties, if it is unfounded or the Court has no jurisdiction (and in the case here, because it may be that a party lacks legal capacity/locus standi). I work as a legal advocate and I often see examples of this.
Fr-EnD Jun 19, 2011:
No, AllegroTrans The striking of a claim can be for either reason: the fact that a party is not allowed to act, or the fact that the court is not allowed to act. You are confusing the argument with the remedy.
AllegroTrans Jun 19, 2011:
So if the Court cannot act... it strikes out the claim before starting to hear it (because it is non-admissible) , yes?
Fr-EnD Jun 19, 2011:
Diff b/w irrecevabilite and FNR (possibly) Irrec means the court isn't allowed to act, and FNR means a party doesn't have the right to act.

http://www.memoireonline.com/06/10/3585/m_La-recevabilite-de...
Fr-EnD Jun 19, 2011:
Chef Often simply means an argument -- one of many arguments in support of a pleading.
Fr-EnD Jun 19, 2011:
I don't think FNR is an application to strike out It could be a ground for such an application but not the application itself. Moreover, I read "sinon" to mean "or, alternatively". So FNR, based on lack of capacity, is pleaded alternatively to irrecevabilite and nullite.
AllegroTrans Jun 18, 2011:
Alternative so as not to repeat the same term could be "striking out" for fin de non-recevoir, but not as I already said, because of any application but because of lack of legal capacity
Laura Elvin Jun 18, 2011:
@AllegroTrans Ah yes, but that's the problem - you've then got 'non-admissibility' for both 'irrecevabilité' and 'fin de non-recevoir'! The latter is surely something going further?
AllegroTrans Jun 18, 2011:
@ Gail I simply see non-recevoir as the verb pertaining to 'irrecevabilité' so it should not pose a problem
AllegroTrans Jun 18, 2011:
@ Laura it's not about an actual application, more about the Court refusing to admit the claim without anyone making an application
I would translate 'irrecevabilité' as non-admissibility
gail desautels (asker) Jun 18, 2011:
irrecevabilité is already translated in the text as "inadmissibility" (I am editing/translating and this I cannot change .. besides I think it is correct here)
Laura Elvin Jun 18, 2011:
@AllegroTrans I think you are definitely on the right lines, but how would you then translate 'irrecevabilité'?
Laura Elvin Jun 18, 2011:
fin de non-recevoir ..is an application to strike out. I'm not too sure about the rest of the phrase although I imagine 'chef' may be 'ground'.
gail desautels (asker) Jun 18, 2011:
thanks, it has to do with summons of liquidators of a company before the Commerical Court in Luxembourg
AllegroTrans Jun 18, 2011:
Clarification Who is suing who, in which country and in which Court?
Also subject is law not finance, I will change it, you will probably get more answers

Proposed translations

-3
3 hrs

a blunt refusal because of their boss's lack of qualifications

see Robert and Collins dictionary for the first part; I do not understand clearly if it means a lack of understanding of their hierarchy, or if their boss is not qualified enough for the job. I would tend to choose solution number 2
Peer comment(s):
disagree AllegroTrans : "blunt refusal" and "boss" are not terms used in legal text!! and it's not about qualifications; and "dans leur chef" is nothing to do with a boss!!
15 mins
disagree Laura Elvin : as AllegroTrans says...
28 mins
disagree Fr-EnD : Further evidence that legalese is a language unto itself.
20 hrs
Something went wrong...
3 hrs

non-admissibility on account of their lack of legal capacity

i.e. the Court may not be able to admit the claim because of this party's lack of legal capacity
Something went wrong...
22 hrs

raise, in their argument, the inability of [name party] to seek the remedy due to lack of capacity

See my discussion entries.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day19 mins (2011-06-19 17:47:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Argue that [party] lacks the legal capacity needed in order to be able to seek the remedy applied for.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day3 hrs (2011-06-19 20:56:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, I have translated fin de non-recevoir. Sometimes you simply cannot translate something by keeping the structure of the source text. You have to say things as they'd be said in English. I am not denying that the pleading can be struck, but that would be the result, not the ground for seeking the result. Those are two different things. In this instance, there are three different "states of affairs" that could lead to a decision here: (1) Nullity. (2) Court's lack of jurisdiction (3) Party's lack of standing because party does not have the requisite capacity. The decision itself MIGHT be the striking of pleadings but it might be a complete dismissal of the proceeding, and it might also be a declaration. We simply don't know that. Striking the pleading is "radiation de l'acte de procedure" and those words were NOT stated and are NOT necessarily implied.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day3 hrs (2011-06-19 21:03:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

When I write [name party], the party I'm referring to is the liquidators' OPPONENT. The liquidators want the court to find that their opponents are not entitled to the remedy that THEY, i.e the OPPONENTS, are seeking, because at least one of three reasons exist. (1) Something -- presumably something the opponents have done -- is void. (2) The court does not have jurisdiction to grant the OPPONENTS the remedy they seek; or (3) The OPPONENTS do not have the legal capacity to seek the remedy they seek.
Peer comment(s):
neutral AllegroTrans : what remedy? this is too vague; the orig. text refers to a specific "fin de non-recevoir"// OK but you have not translated "fin de non-recevoir"
4 hrs
No, the remedy that I am talking about isn't the fin de non recevoir; it's what the fin de non recevoir seeks to block.\
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search