Terrain nu et dépollué par le vendeur

18:10 Mar 31, 2014 

Not quite: having land surveyed for contamination is not covered by the term "decontamination". The latter is only applicable if there is contamination present. As far as I recall contamination survey reports never say that no contamination is present, only that none was detected, because wherever you take your samples from, it is always possible that another part of the site, perhaps just a metre or two away, may be contaminated or that the survey failed to test for a particular contaminant that is present, perhaps because it is rare or there was no history of it in that area.

14:42 Mar 31, 2014 

That does all make a lot of sense now!

And after all, you can 'decontaminate' something even if you're not sure it is contaminated in the first place — part of the process involves first doing a survey to find out just want contamination if any may be present.

So just like 'dépollué', 'decontaminate' encompasses the notion of 'check for contamination and if necessary decontaminate' — funnily enough, I've just been translating a survey report on this very subject.

13:57 Mar 31, 2014 

In response to Tony's question, the client says that the site is NOT virgin land: there is already some type of construction on it. Said construction will have to be removed and the site cleaned up (i.e. there is "dechets", but not necessarily "pollution" per se) just after that.

09:13 Mar 31, 2014 

The problem with a non-specific undertaking to decontaminate a site is that there are so many diffferent types of contamination and new contaminants can be found/identified at any time. It is like giving a blank cheque. On the other hand, if a survey has been conducted and a specific contamination has been identified, it is clear what one means by decontamination. Contamination doesn't necessarily originate on the site it affects, e.g. groundwater plumes, can occur on virgin land e.g. anthrax spores, lead and arsenic, or may come from a neighbouring or even distant site e.g. Welsh hillsides contaminated by Chernobyl.

22:30 Mar 30, 2014 

As you can see from some of the confusion here, it is far from clear whether this clause refers to some specific site, which we know has already been built on and in some way polluted; or is this perhaps, as I suspect, a general 'cover-all' clause, IN CASE the land might have been built on and IN CASE it might have been contaminated? I think this has a huge bearing on what we can or can't say about it...

22:25 Mar 30, 2014 

'Vendor' is perfectly fine here; although 'vendor' may in some contexts mean a specific regular supplier, that is by no means exclusive, and 'vendor' is commonly used as simply a more formal version of 'seller'.

22:08 Mar 30, 2014 

should not be translated as "vendor". It's seller, IMO. I think a vendor is a regular supplier of a company.

20:42 Mar 30, 2014 

I agree with BDF regarding 'dépolluer' — it can only refer to decontamination; however, given that this could be a general clause in a standard contract, it is possible we need to interpret it as 'decontaminated — if necessary'.

20:40 Mar 30, 2014 

It quite agree! 'nu' here definitely implies 'without buidlings' (though there may or may not have ever been buildings in the first place) — it does NOT mean 'cleared' in the sense of brambles, vegetation, etc.

20:39 Mar 30, 2014 

It is not helpful to refer us to your previosu questions; if you would like us to help you, then you need to give the fullest possible context for EACH question, and thus make it as easy as possible for us to help you. If there really is some specific link to another question, then at the very least, you should give is the URL, as otherwise, it is very laborious for us to go to all the trouble of finding it.

18:18 Mar 30, 2014 

A couple of things I referred to seem to imply that the French "terrain nu" may not be fully equivalent to the English and Welsh "cleared site" as "nu" might only to refer to the absence of built structures. It could, nonetheless, be either greenfield or brownfield (and a greenfield site may well be contaminated).

17:59 Mar 30, 2014 

A cleared site is generally understood to be a site cleared of any obstructions to development, such as buildings, trees and brambles. However, a "terrain nu" might never have had any such obstructions on it. The problem with the use of the word "bare" is that I believe it generally refers to ownership rights (and so could lead to confusion), rather than to the condition of the land itself, while here "nu" seems to refer to the condition of the land.

According to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dépollution_des_sols, "dépollué" means exactly the same as "decontaminated" does in English. Obviously, only a site that has previously been contaminated can be decontaminated. Had the site not been contaminated, it would have been referred to as "non-pollué".

17:04 Mar 30, 2014 

bare land. There is nothing in the text that suggests otherwise. And I don't see anything else in the doc (a Term Sheet for a Shareholders' Agreement) that could be useful to you. Sorry about that.

16:51 Mar 30, 2014 

I don't think the French dépolluer necessarily has anything to do with pollution or contamination, which then excludes most of the answers so far. However, we do need to know the implication to be sure. As I understand it, it is bare land, cleared (of rubbish, vegetation?) by the vendor/seller. Unless the asker tells us otherwise.

16:36 Mar 30, 2014 

cleared of vegetation? cleared of structures/buildings? cleared of contamination/pollution?
'undeveloped' (devoid of structures/buildings) seems closer to the mark.

16:10 Mar 30, 2014 

Hi,

Pls find more context in my other questions asked today. The text concerns a "terrain a batir".

Thanks!

15:32 Mar 30, 2014 

@Asker
Could you give any more context on the type of land? Has it been previously developed? Has it been contaminated?