créances qu’elle pourrait avoir sur le Fournisseur

21:01 Jul 5, 2019 

Elle pourra compenser les créances qu’elle pourrait avoir sur le Fournisseur et les sommes qu’elle pourrait lui devoir

One possible reason for this confusion: the name of this company is au masculin and the writer lost track if this this company was referred to by its name or as "la Société". Kind of error easy to make.

12:52 Jul 5, 2019 

That anecdote had actually been lifted from '(Civil) Pleadings without Tears' written by a London Circuit Judge and a Hugh Court judge who wrote successive editions.

On a serious note, it is virtually set reading for law (Solicitors' and Bar) Finals in the UK and may be useful for translators and interpreters who intend to act as LIPs, to wit: Litigants in Person. global.oup.com/academic/product/pleadings-without-tears-9780198804055?cc=at&lang=en&

12:06 Jul 5, 2019 

Doesn't help when they get the French wrong!

12:05 Jul 5, 2019 

As it stands, the sentence says the company can set awff the money Supplier owes it with the money Supplier owes it. Someone must have got their genders all mixed up. It seems to me the sentence should read: Elle pourra compenser les créances qu’elle pourrait avoir sur le Fournisseur et les sommes qu’elle pourrait lui devoir. That must be what the author meant, which is why I agreed with Adrian's answer and still do; it answers the question as asked and it is the only one that makes sense in context - even though said context looks a tad promiscuous.

07:24 Jul 5, 2019 

No forgiveness in any confessional needed, as you are literally on-the-spot in France. I actually agree with your analysis which (peace, man) dovetails with mine: 'celui-ci = the supplier'. We are talking or writing at cross-purposes or, as ProZ native German translators write in Denglish_ '... talking past each other..'. Either way, it is an equitable-type set-off or, as posh law lecturers in Putney used to pronounce: 'set awff'-

05:44 Jul 5, 2019 

Thanks Tony, makes sense

21:42 Jul 4, 2019 

I hope you'll forgive me for continuing here.
As I see it, 'il' must refer to 'le Fournisseur' — the only preceding masculine noun.
Conversely, we know that 'elle' is the First Party in all this (typically 'la Société', etc.) — and 'lui' can equally well be 'elle' as 'il'
So: that the Supplier [il] owes to it ('lui' = the Company)

08:54 Jul 4, 2019 

Yes that's how I read it! You know, you're right got my accounts payable and receivable mixed up!

08:32 Jul 4, 2019 

XXX = "elle" (la société ?)
"il" = "le fournisseur"
So it's the opposite!
The company XXX can offset any sums owed to it be the Supplier against any sumes tha Company owes to the Supplier.
Standard (though unpopular!) business practice.

08:20 Jul 4, 2019 

Of course! However not sure how you could offset money you owe them against money you owe them! (les sommes qu’il pourrait lui devoir). Or am I misreading it?

08:14 Jul 4, 2019 

It depends a bit on what the exact context is, but normally this would be 'accounts payable' — if you BUY something from a SUPPLIER, you OWE THEM money, and their invoice goes into the ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ledger.