agissant ensemble, sans solidarité

16:41 Sep 21, 2017 

To IanDhu, my understanding of jointly, is that everyone is liable together (or must make decisions together, whereas if they are jointly and severally liable, they may either be liable as a group or be individually liable... So the reverse of what you are saying. I agree with Rob Grayson, and that is the answer I used, but as Rob did not submit an answer, I can do no more than close the question without grading. Thanks for all your input

15:59 Sep 21, 2017 

i.e. each individual debtor is not liable for the whole amount, but each is liable for the portion of the debt or obligation that concerns itself, [i]pace[/i] Rob Grayson.

14:34 Sep 15, 2017 

Just a word to say that as it stands, "sans qu'il puisse exister entre eux une quelconque solidarité" does not suggest any possibility of choice, but rather an indication that it is a condition. I am not sure that "do not accept any joint liability" puts quite the right tone on this.

14:16 Sep 15, 2017 

Fair enough!

14:01 Sep 15, 2017 

…it IS legalese, so I don't think it's helpful to try to take it out of legalese. "Severally but not jointly" is a perfectly acceptable legal description.

13:59 Sep 15, 2017 

Well if you take it out of legalese, and say 'acting separately but together, it sounds stupid!
I have just discovered another sentence, 'sans qu'il puisse exister entre eux une quelconque solidarité'
which I have translated: ..do not accept any joint liability...
maybe adding liability makes it clearer, so for the transition of the phrase, that would make it : acting separately without joint liability

13:50 Sep 15, 2017 

To asker: is there a good reason why you wouldn't just say "severally but not jointly" (i.e. simply drop "together" from your own suggested translation)?