GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
10:29 Jun 15, 2014 |
|
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters / Contract between producer of Dolomite and supplier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Nikki Scott-Despaigne Local time: 15:50 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Discussion entries: 20 | |
---|---|
but possible enforcement Explanation: This includes "le cas échéant". |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
(except in the case where) the application of the clause....p Explanation: the potential nullification of any of the clauses in this contract shall not lead to nullification of the other provisions, except in the case where the of the clause for “Unexpected events” covered above in Article 10 is necessary/required." -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 24 mins (2014-06-15 10:53:34 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- basically, what it's saying is that just because one clause is nullified doesn't mean the whole contract is terminated. Force majeure and unexpected event clauses usually give reasons why there is no breach or infraction to be considered because of events beyond control. Obviously if Article 10 is applied in some cases it DOES impact on other clauses or indeed on the contract as a whole (if a rescission clause) -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 25 mins (2014-06-15 10:54:51 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- no, you've got the meaning and I would not use "but" either. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 32 mins (2014-06-15 11:02:10 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- typo just spotted in second line. Should read (.... the case where) the clause for "unexpected events"... I might use "provided for " instead of "covered" -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2014-06-15 11:58:54 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- "except where/except in the case where ..." are perfectly OK imo here. = If this happens, then... |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
the unforeseen events clause shall apply Explanation: the remaining provisions of the contract shall not be void |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
nullité...l'application... imprévision Null/void... application... Explanation: “Should one of the clauses herein be rendered null, this shall not render null other contractual provisions, but may give rise to the application of the (un)foreseeability provision set out in article 10 above”. I think there is a term for "clause d'imprévision" which, for the life of me, I cannot find right now. However, this is to do with foreseeability/unforseeability (a big thing in English law, what with that and the "reasonable man", as any UK law student will know!) . It depends how you have termed the famous "unexepcted events" clause. That term will not do, by the way. The term is as mentionend above. I think that (hang on..., let me scroll up...) Yes, John has the same term too. It really is standard in such circumstances. My suggestion needs a little tweaking here and there but there really is no wizardry in the original. ;-) |
| |
Grading comment
| ||