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.
Explanation: i.e. both the French body of legislation and the French legal system (courts)
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 9 hrs (2016-11-21 16:59:52 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Asker: there really is often no such thing as a "set phrase". Lawyers tend to use their own styles, both in France (obviously!) and in EN-spkg countries. I have used "law and legislation" simply beacause it trips off the tongue more easily than "legislation and law".
thank you... although I think PhilGoddard's point is valid in that "law" is a superset of "legislation". But I think the same bemusement applies to the original FR, so regard it is a faithfully ingenious translation... 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
Thanks. But in fact I was responding to AllegroTrans' question about why bits of this discussion had been excised. Oops... just realised I haven't accepted an answer yet!
some moderator has a fairly rigid idea about how the tone of these discussions should be. I note that it is still categorised laughably as Non-Pro, despite the calibre of the people, including yourself, who think that the deliberate use of two words, "Loi" and "droit", by a qualified French jurist might, er, just possibly be significant.
to our (reasonably) civil discussion on whether this is a PRO or non-PRO question? WHY has it been deleted? - it is pertinent to the question and there is no reason to tp do this
La loi désigne, au sens strict, la loi ordinaire votée par l'Assemblée nationale et le Sénat dans le cadre des compétences de l’article 34 de la Constitution.
Le droit français est, actuellement, un droit de tradition civiliste régissant le droit appliqué en France mais en partie seulement.
ph-b (X)
France
@ Mpoma, about Loi with a capital letter.
20:34 Nov 21, 2016
I’d noted it too when you asked your question and I assumed you had checked that this ‘Law’ hadn’t been referred to/defined in the Definitions Section of your text – there should be one. I’m saying this because unusual capital letters in a French legal text mean that the term has been defined (I know it’s the case in English as well, except that English is generally much more liberal in its use of capital letters than French). However, following your ‘I take this to be intentional’, I wonder whether this has occurred to you. Can you confirm that your text doesn’t give any information about this ‘Law’ ? Because if it does, then the translation becomes much simpler…
"intuitu personae" contracts are rather the exception than the default/the general rule/the bog standard stuff ...
and if this is "non-pro" then 99% of all other questions also are!
given the importance of this kind of clauses in case of litigation, (these so-called "unimportant subtle nuances" can make the difference between winning or biting the dust ...) I would ask the client for clarifications!
In one case I know of the careless use of a 10 letter legal term (in the original contract, not a translation) has sunk a company - IOW in a contract potentially everything is important!
I think that AllegroTrans is on the right path, but you need a confirmation from the client.
Indeed! ... to answer the question: very very standard stuff: intuitu personae, solvency of the client... this para is the final one, and I shall quote it here as I don't appear to be able to add notes to my question. In general the legal drafting is very good in the document... "Les CGP sont soumises à la Loi et au droit français. Tout différend pouvant survenir sur l'interprétation Contrat et qui n'aura pu faire l'objet d'une solution amiable entre le Client et XXX, dans un délai de trente (30) jours suivant la réception d'un courrier recommandé avec demande d'avis de réception sera soumis au tribunal de commerce de YYY, même en cas d'appel en garantie ou de pluralité des défendeurs"
... you will have noted that "Loi" has a capital letter... and I take this to be intentional. All quite mysterious.
You say ""subject to French law" means that only the jurisdiction of the French courts is applicable, and no other". This is misconceived. "Subject to French law" means that the contract must be interpreted in accordance with French law. Thus, if a dispute comes before an English Court (i.e. in the absence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause) the English Court MUST apply French law. Yes, this happens - and the usual scneario is that an independent expert in French law advises the Court.
I followed that link and it led to a song by Bruno Mars with the lyrics helpfully displayed, one line of which is "Bad bitches and ya ugly ass friends (Haha)". Do you know something about Phil's musical taste that we don't?
is that whoever drafted this did so rather vaguely. Perhaps he/she meant to say that the contract is subject to French law AND the jurisdiction of the French courts (which is something that appears in countless contracts). We cannot assume this however. On the other hand, nor can we assume that ONLY "law" was intended.
Thanks for your contribution... but are you saying that in FR the expression "loi et droit" is also a tautology? I suggest you google "Difference entre droit et loi": some interesting stuff comes up, such as "La loi est la déclinaison concrète du droit"...
I think it could be argued that "French law" would be enough here, but I find your comment surprising. To me the distinction between "loi" and "droit" is pretty basic — the kind of thing students are expected to have grasped at a fairly early stage of studying French. To use the wrong one when translating "law" into French is a bad mistake. And to say that this difference does not exist in English merely because both are normally called "law" seems to me an obvious fallacy. It amounts to saying that words always have the same meaning. If the concepts need to be distinguished in English (perhaps they do here, perhaps they don't), there are ways of doing so, as some colleagues have shown. To say that law and legislation are the same thing is obviously untrue. "Law" can mean legislation but it doesn't always mean that. People who study law do not only study legislation.
Even if there is some subtle distinction between loi and droit in French, though it's more likely to be bad writing, there is no such difference in English. You can't say "law and legislation".
Yes, "subject to French law" means that only the jurisdiction of the French courts is applicable, and no other. This is common in legal contracts crossing international boundaries, and hence, international jurisdictions. It is usually the jurisdiction of the buyer's country that is selected. But don't forget, legislation can change and be amended, whereas the jurisdiction remains constant however long a contract's terms are in force. Yes, ' droit' is a broader concept, which fits into what I said. I believe the author's intentions to be as stated lower down, and to answer your other question, I don't believe ' subject to French law' is adequate as it is too imprecise; there are French colonies in Africa ' subject to French law' but not necessarily that of the mother country itself; there are two aspects as stated; legislation which is liable to change, and secondly, jurisdictional area.
@Charles: er, yes, see my discussion entry @Daryo I'm not sure: as I suggest (echoed by Charles and also by Allegro), we feel "le droit" is a broader thing: not just enacted legislation, but the whole "legal system". Questions are then: a) what is the intention of the author? b) is just saying "subject to French law" adequate or inadequate?
"Les CGP sont soumises à la Loi et au droit français" is a very unusual wording - barely few ghits!
given that "le droit français" includes also ALL "lois françaises" it is a rather clumsy wording - same as saying "the car and the wheels"! what would be the point of mentioning the wheels???
What could be a bone of contention in case of litigation is (firstly) the applicable law and (secondly) which tribunal will be competent (in which party's territory) - if they had this distinction in mind, they didn't make it clear at all; as it is it sound really silly/clumsy.
Although both these words are normally translated as "law", the difference between them is surely familiar. "Loi" refers to statutes, legislation: the sum total of the (relevant) provisions enacted by the legislative branch. "Droit" is a broader and more abstract concept, which embraces all the principles and procedures of the (in this case) French legal system. These extend far beyond the specific terms of the pertinent legislation (loi).
I don't think the question of whether "français" applies to both or just to "droit" is very significant. "Loi" by implication necessarily means applicable legislation, which will presumably include both French and European laws.
Yes, there is a sublimal message going on here I reckon; it is that legal provisions means 'legal provisions at any given time', i.e, that they are liable to change, but that the fact they fall under the jurisdiction of French law is constant and unchanging; otherwise, as previously stated, the formulation is slightly clumsy and would have been better left at ' soumise au droit français'; as they've expanded on it, I would go for 'legal provisions under French law';
Either the CGC are subject to two things : la Loi + le droit français. That gives « subject to the law (=provisions, thus law in the widest sense, statutes (codes), rules, regulations) and to French law ». Or, another reading, subject to : la Loi et au droit français. This gives “subject to French law and governed by French law (jurisdiction). The term "français" can be read as applying to "droit" alone, but it could also apply to both "la Loi" and "le droit" thus plural. In either event, the CGC are governed by French law. The important thing is to see whether the intention of the draftsman is to point separately to the law in general and then to French law (in terms of jurisdiction?). Might the intention be to say “subject to French law” and then “governed by French law”??? You might need to ask the client.
I didn't see it an an error, but as I said, a bit of clumsy drafting. When I Google "soumis à la Loi et au droit français" I get 4 hits, 1 of which is this question; when I Google "soumises à la Loi et au droit français", I get 5 hits, one of which is Proz. 9 hits is still an indication that it is rare. However, I do take your point that it is probably not an error per se, nor even necessarily clumsy drafting. It is certainly unusual.
Tx, but I don't think this is right: google the phrase soumis "à la Loi et au droit français" entre guillemets and you get 9 hits. This is too many for a drafting error.
is that Loi = "whole set of enacted laws" and droit = "legal system, with all the judges, lawyers, bailiffs, case law". The best translation may well be "subject to French law"... but a more accurate might possibly be sthg like "subject to French laws and the French legal provisions".
Hello Mpoona, The original appears to have been the victim of clumsy drafting. If the CGC are subject to the law and to French law, which is what is written, then it would be best to say that the CGC are "subject to French law". You might like to check with the client, but I reckon this is just a bit of clumsy drafting.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
9 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
Subject to the French law
Explanation: Very common
Chakib Roula Algeria Local time: 12:08 Specializes in field Native speaker of: Arabic, French PRO pts in category: 12
Notes to answerer
Asker: It would be "Subject to French law": no "the". But the question kind of hopefully implies that a more ample *explanation* is given. What are French lawyers who use this phrase getting at? How does "loi" differ from "droit"? It may indeed be "very common", but this doesn't really constitute "authority" or "proof" in the sense we like in the Proz archives!
peer agreement (net): +1
