Understanding of sentence
| 14:02 Jun 25, 2008 |
|
| English language (monolingual) [PRO] Law: Contract(s) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 +1 | Interpreted |
| ||
| 4 +1 | A rule at law |
| ||
| 3 | understanding of the medium |
| ||
| 3 | without a particular attention |
|
| Discussion entries: 5 | |
|---|---|
Answers
1 hr confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1| understanding of sentence Interpreted Explanation: I think that perhaps your difficulty with the sentence springs from a misunderstanding of the word "construed". It does NOT mean, as BdiL states "devised" or "written" but "interpreted". There is a subtle difference between the "Interpretation" and the "Construction" of an agreement/contract, but for that I recommend a quick immersion course in Alcaraz Varó et al.... Andy -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2008-06-25 15:38:57 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- One way to think more clearly about this process is to distinguish between interpretation and construction. We can roughly define these two activities as follows: Interpretation: The activity of determining the linguistic meaning (or semantic content) of a legal text. Construction: The activity of translating the semantic content of a legal text into legal rules, paradigmatically in cases where the meaning of the text is vague. Those definitions sound pretty technical to me, but I hope you are starting to get the idea. We interpret the meaning of a text, and then we construct legal rules to help us apply the text to concrete fact situations. Courts and legal theorists use the distinction between interpretation and construction in a variety of legal contexts, including contract law and constitutional law. In a contracts case, for example, the Iowa Supreme Court stated, "Interpretation involves ascertaining the meaning of contractual words; construction refers to deciding their legal effect." Fashion Fabrics of Iowa v. Retail Investment Corporation, 266 N.W. 2d 25 (Iowa 1978). This introduction to the interpretation-construction distinction is aimed at law students (especially first year law students) with an interest in legal theory. http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2008/04/legal... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2008-06-25 16:23:09 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- BDil, Please refrain from sending me messages such as this one, which I have just received from you: "Oh, well, if newcal already **undersants**, may I say, Sir, that you are a bloody bastard? No offence intended, of course! Yours sincerely Maurizio Bianco" Thank you, Andy |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
3 hrs confidence:
| understanding of sentence understanding of the medium Explanation: Newcal, I'm surprised that you are putting up whole paras at a time! It seems to me you are tickling the fancies of needy translators. Certainly the language is some 50 years out of date. Don't you think? |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
11 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1| understanding of sentence A rule at law Explanation: In legal context, there is a simple rule to the effect that if one party to a contract prepared or drafted the contract which both party signed, and later on if there is any doubt as to the meaning of some articles or paragraghs, then the vague parts should be interpreted or construed against the the preparer or drafter. It's assumed that anybody preparing or drafting a contract would think of his/her interest first, so if he/she tries to take advantage of this drafting position and put his/her counterparty at a disadvantage by inserting some vague languages therein, then it would be fair to interpret or construe the vague parts against him/her. In the question provided, the parties just try to avoid this rule. The meaning of the first sentence is that when in doubt about the meaning of some articles or stipulations in the contract, they should not be interpreted or construed against the drafter, either party should be treated equal. The second sentence just stresses that both parties have conducted a free and complete negotiation before signing the contract, so if there is any doubt or dispute as to the meaning of the articles, then the articles should be interpreted or construed in a really fair fashion, and should not be just against the drafter. |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
28 mins confidence:
| understanding of sentence without a particular attention Explanation: "This agreement shall be devised (written) without a particular attention (that is without being "customized" or custom-fitted) to the party that requested this A. or part of it" . Maurizio -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 31 mins (2008-06-25 14:34:02 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I summarized, but there's the core meaning of the sentence. M. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 33 mins (2008-06-25 14:35:45 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Again, the point is that a neutral stand shall be kept in the drafting, and they want to make it perfectly clear. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day20 hrs (2008-06-27 10:46:19 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- *****I post here, but of course this note is NOT related to my own answer! If not to stress the fact that mine was a "poor" response.***** I find it amazing that this question was closed due to the lack of an acceptable answer! Let me say that, in my ignorance, I learned a lot both from Andy Watkinson and orientalhorizon in the fields of law doctrine and jargon. And I wish to thank them for their apt and witty answers. (Besides that I also learned that overconfidence in the use of someone else's mother tongue is, to say the least, perilous. Mr Watkinson, once again, I beg your pardon. My intention was not to be abusive to you. I only used an expression with the emphasis I might use as old friends, which we are not and may never be. I was plainly wrong.) This, however, is my opinion and it shall be open to criticism. Maurice |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also:
Search millions of term translations