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.
Cookie settings
Performance Security
Support truck

Glossary entry

English term or phrase:

not without prior reference to the Principal... to act on behalf of

French translation:

ne pas agir pour le compte du Mandant... sans l'avoir sollicité au préalable...

Added to glossary by Tony M
Feb 10, 2013 10:44
11 yrs ago
6 viewers *
English term

Not without prior reference to the Principal... on behalf of

English to French Law/Patents Business/Commerce (general) Agency Agreement
There's something wrong with this sentence but I can't figure out how to fix it so I can translate it.

AGENT'S OBLIGATIONS
(...)
2.8 Not without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions) on behalf of the Principal to take part in any dispute or commence or defend any court or other dispute proceedings or settle or attempt to settle or make any admission concerning any such proceedings.
http://www.idiamondyou.com/Agent agreement IDY _v3.doc
Proposed translations (French)
3 -1 ne pas agir pour le compte du Mandant... sans l'avoir sollicité au préalable...
5 +1 (pour et au nom du mandant) sans en être convenu au préalable avec celui-ci
3 non sans en avoir auparavant (préalablement) sollicité le (pris l'avis du)...
3 -1 non sans référence préalable au principal.. pour le compte de
Change log

Feb 15, 2013 14:31: Tony M changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/1280476">Cyril B.'s</a> old entry - "Not without prior reference to the Principal... on behalf of"" to ""ne pas agir pour le compte du Mandant... sans l\'avoir sollicité au préalable...""

Discussion

Germaine Feb 11, 2013:
Tony, You said it: "If the 'not without' was meant to go together...". I don't know if it "was meant" to go together, but I surely see that they are going together, not being dissociated by a comma or in another way. So, yes, since they are together, "not without" means "with" = once you refered to the Principal. Remember that this is an obligation of the Agent in favor of the Principal and that should the Principal ask the Agent to "take part in a dispute" (for instance), the Agent will still be acting on behalf of the Principal (and normally held harmless, such a clause usually being paired with the indemnisation clause (here, 4.2).

Finally, I don't see why, since it "still means there must be prior reference to the Principal", it removes the sense of 'ONLY with', especially since such reference to the Principal is qualified by "and then only acting strictly..."
Tony M Feb 11, 2013:
@ Germaine While I agree with the fact that this is a standard clause, I'm afraid I have to totally disagree with the way you are seeking to interpret it; not only is this contrary even to the normal, everyday meaning of the syntax, but as Cyril has understood, it also changes the meaning; maybe not a lot, but enough to mess up the logic of the sentence. If the 'not without' was meant to go together (which I insist and am 100% certain it is NOT), then in EN that means 'with', and the sentence becomes:

"[undertakes] with prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions) on behalf of the Principal to take part in any..."

Which still means there must be prior reference to the Principal, BUT it removes the sense of 'ONLY with' that is after all the very essenc of this whole clause.

Furthermore, 'not without' is a relatively collouquial usage, out of place (and comparatively uncommon) in a formal legal register.


If the intended meaning had been 'with', then the writer would have been strongly motivated to have said that.
Germaine Feb 11, 2013:
Cyril, Je précise: s'il survient un litige, une poursuite, etc. dans le cadre du mandat (c'est ce dont on parle: les obligations de l'Agent en vertu du contrat) ce sera le fait de l'Agent: c'est lui qui agit! Je n'avance rien sur ce que le Principal fait de son côté dans ses propres affaires (où l'agent n'a rien à voir et aucune obligation). Il n'y a donc pas de "huge commitment" à assumer la responsabilité de ses propres gestes. Ou alors, on ne parle pas de la même chose.
Ce que je suggère est ce qui est rédigé, tel que rédigé - "Not without prior reference... to take..." = (littéralement) "non sans en référer à... prendre..." et non "Not, without prior reference..., to take" (Ne pas, sans en référer, prendre) - comme je le comprends (et comme Françoise, Marion, Peter et Pierre le comprennent également, sauf erreur). J'y reviens: L'agent s'engage à prendre fait et cause, au nom du client, après en être convenu avec lui et suivant ses instructions. Ce qui est important ici, c'est qu'il ne dispose pas du pouvoir de ce faire à sa propre initiative, unilatéralement, mais que si un litige survient, il ne s'en lave pas les mains: il doit prendre fait et cause pour le mandant.
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 11, 2013:
Germaine The provision you're suggesting would mean a huge commitment from the agent; "If the Principal gets into a suit, it will be because of the Agent" is your own interpretation and it doesn't appear anywhere in the text. Legal documents don't leave that kind of mentions implied...

The provision you're suggesting would mean that the agent commits to undertake any proceedings on behalf of the principal. No way. Such a clause would need to include a lot more details, it wouldn't be a mere sentence lost in the middle of the other general obligations.

L'agent s'engage à ne pas participer, au nom du mandataire, à une procédure quelconque, sans agir sur les strictes instructions dudit mandataire.

Simple and logical :)
Germaine Feb 11, 2013:
Tony, Cyril Tony,
Sorry, but you're changing the sentence (but, without) to make it fit your interpretation.
Cyril,
Tony's position is not the "usual". If the Principal gets into a suit, it will be because of the Agent (l'Agent ne peut être interpellé dans n'importe quelle procédure où il n'est pas déjà partie, quand même! Il doit y avoir un lien!) since the Agent acts on behalf of the Principal through the Agency agreement. So yes, si un litige survient, l'Agent doit accepter de "prendre fait et cause" (take part in a dispute) pour le Principal. Une recherche sur cette simple expression devrait vous éclairer.
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 11, 2013:
Thank you very much to you all! All the input helped a lot.

After putting a lot of thought and time into it, I still understand it as Tony does: I think the Agent undertakes to NOT take part in any proceedings without first consulting the Principal and then strictly acting on their instructions.

- it's the usual logic of this type of agreements
- undertaking to take part to any proceedings on behalf of the principal would be a weird - and dangerous - provision for the Agent to accept at that point. Say the principal gets involved in a huge lawsuit, the Agent is bound to defend that lawsuit on behalf of the principal? I wouldn't sign that if I were the agent!
- I understand that 'and then' to be pointing in that direction too.
Germaine Feb 10, 2013:
Tony, This is a standard clause in every agency contract I ever translated or processed, both in English and in French, and I am 100% sure that it has to be read as written, being:
"the agent undertakes, not without prior reference to the Principal, to take part..." - which is what the Agent might be reluctant to do while the Principal wants to make sure the Agent is on his/her/its side and will do as needed without having to negociate) - rather than
"the agent undertakes not, without prior reference to the Principal, to take part in..."
where the added comma between not and without put the Principal in a situation where he/she/it will have to beg for the support of the Agent. See the difference between: "I undertake, not without your prior consent, to paint your fence" and "I undertake not, without your prior consent, to paint your fence"?

Notice that the entire clause (Agent's obligations) is for the benefit of the Principal, not for that of the Agent. So the Agent has an "obligation to" rather than an obligation "not to".
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
@ Françoise If we try to interpret it as you suggest, then we end up with:

"The Agent undertakes TO TAKE PART in any dispute or COMMENCE or DEFEND any court or other dispute proceedings or SETTLE or ATTEMPT to settle or MAKE any admission concerning any such proceedings." [Not without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions) on behalf of the Principal] — this simply changes the sense of the source text too much.

We HAVE to read it as "undertakes... not...to take..." — there is NO OTHER WAY this can be read correctly in English.
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
I'm sorry But I can't agree with all these interpretations by non-native speakers; I know it is against KudoZ rules to mention native speaker status, but it is very clear that our non-native colleagues seem to be missing the very vital point of interpretation here, and I would counsel extreme caution...
Germaine Feb 10, 2013:
Tout à fait d'accord... avec les commentaires de Françoise.
Françoise Vogel Feb 10, 2013:
est-il encore temps ? la lecture la + simple pour rendre le texte intelligible sans le remanier pourrait être d'ajouter des parenthèses :
[Not without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions) on behalf of the Principal] TO TAKE PART in any dispute or COMMENCE or DEFEND any court or other dispute proceedings or SETTLE or ATTEMPT to settle or MAKE any admission concerning any such proceedings.
Françoise Vogel Feb 10, 2013:
nothing missing in the source text ce n'est pas un engagement à "ne pas" mais bien le contraire (dans le respect de certaines conditions: informer le mandant au préalable, suivre rigoureusement ses instructions) ... il suffit de suivre l'analyse logique proposée par Marion.
Françoise Vogel Feb 10, 2013:
@ Cyril et pourtant je l'aurais compris comme Marion... c'est à dire qu'au contraire il s'engage à assumer toutes les responsabilités nécessaires au plan judiciaire, au nom du mandant et non sans avoir référé à lui préalablement.
Peter LEGUIE Feb 10, 2013:
Tony Okay Tony, but what do you actually disagree with? Is it my "formule d'introduction" or the way the sentence is built (which I did not go into)?
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
Right on! I think you have it now, Cyril!
Peter LEGUIE Feb 10, 2013:
Okay, then "non sans en avoir" might help here, particulary for concision purposes.
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 10, 2013:
[L’Agent s’engage à, et convient avec le Mandant de :]
ne pas, à moins de consulter préalablement le Mandant et d’agir alors uniquement sur ses strictes instructions expresses, prendre part à un litige, ou initier ou défendre une procédure judiciaire ou autre, ou résoudre, ou tenter de résoudre, ou faire d’admission quelconque concernant, une telle procédure, au nom du Mandant.
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 10, 2013:
I'm considering the preceding verb to be 's'engage'
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
@ Asker Sounds better to me — though the use of the 'à' is going to depend on the preceding verb.

No, sadly, there is a very strong tendency to leave out commas in EN legal language, just as we so often see in the FR equivalent; this can no longer be considered as 'wrong', since it has slipped into common usage, albeit primarily in a specific field.
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 10, 2013:
@Tony There's at least a few missing commas, which is wrong :)
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 10, 2013:
How does that sound? "À ne pas, à moins de consulter préalablement le Mandant (et en agissant alors uniquement sur les strictes instructions expresses du mandant), prendre part à un litige, ou initier ou défendre une procédure judiciaire ou autre, ou résoudre, ou tenter de résoudre, ou faire une admission concernant, une telle procédure, au nom du Mandant. "
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
@ Asker Not, it's not "awfully wrong" at all, it's perfectly standard, though horribly unwieldy, legal English.

PS: I'm 100% sure I'm right about the interpretation, my answer's confidence level simply reflects my humility when it comes to expressing myself in FR ;-)

This is a typical construction found in EN (but only in legal-style documents!), where some condition (here, 'not to...') has to apply to a whole string of verbs (the legal profession, as ever, trying to anticipate every eventuality!) BUT there are necessary subordinate clauses — so where do you put them?

Try this, and you'll see what I mean:

"Not to take part in any dispute or commence or defend any court or other dispute proceedings or settle or attempt to settle or make any admission concerning any such proceedings on behalf of the Principal without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions)"
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 10, 2013:
Tony It looks like you're right... But that sentence still looks awfully wrong, with all that stuff between 'not' and 'take part'. What a horrible syntax!
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
@ Asker Don't be!

The 'not' at the head belongs with the 'take part' — everything in between is a subordinate clause.

If you associate 'not' and 'without', then in effect you end up with a double negative; and without the 'not', the 'take part' makes less sense: "to take part in ... not without..."

'not without' is an expression used in some instances, meaning 'with': "Not without some difficulty, the old man climbed the stairs to bed"

But that's not the way it is being used here; it would of course help to know just how the preliminary clause is worded, perhaps as I've suggested 'undertakes' — it must surely be some kind of verb that can correctly be followed by a negative, as in 'undertakes not to do something'.
Cyril B. (asker) Feb 10, 2013:
Tony Now I'm confused :)
Tony M Feb 10, 2013:
@ Marion Not quite!

There's nothing actually wrong with the sentence, Cyril it's just a bit convoluted! Try this:

"..undertakes ... not to take part in any dispute ... on behalf of the Principal without prior reference to [= having first cleared it with] the Principal (and then only...)" — better?
Marion Feildel (X) Feb 10, 2013:
la phrase dans un ordre français 3. AGENT'S OBLIGATIONS
The Agent undertakes and agrees with the Principal at all times during the term of this agreement
...
to take part on behalf of the Principal - not without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions) - in any dispute or commence or defend any court or other dispute proceedings or settle or attempt to settle or make any admission concerning any such proceedings.

Proposed translations

-1
28 mins
Selected

ne pas agir pour le compte du Mandant... sans l'avoir sollicité au préalable...

...that sort of thing?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs (2013-02-10 22:06:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

This "lack of commas" is so very typical of legal language (both in EN and FR), surely you have come across it many times before?

Try it like this, then:

"Not, without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions), on behalf of the Principal, to take part in any dispute or commence or defend any court or other dispute proceedings or settle or attempt to settle or make any admission concerning any such proceedings."

The trouble is, there is not one, but two subordinate clauses to fit in there somewhere:

"without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions)" and "on behalf of the Principal" to analyse the sentence better, leave them both out:

"Not ... to take part in any dispute or commence or defend any court or other dispute proceedings or settle or attempt to settle or make any admission concerning any such proceedings."


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2013-02-15 14:35:41 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

In answer to germaine's peer comment: it is VERY COMMON INDEED in legal writing to leave out commas that would be very helpful for disambiguation — and I've noted this almost as often in FR legal language as in EN.

So it's not a case of 'assuming' the existence of something that isn't there, but simply of interpreting the source text on the basis of legal and linguistic logic, in the light of prior experience of this particular language .

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2013-02-15 14:36:28 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry: "...language register.'

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2013-02-15 14:41:05 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Although 'not to do something without' and 'to do something with' do ultimately of course amount to the same thing, there is naturally a world of difference, legally-speaking, between the two ways of expressing a similar idea. The idea of 'to do something only with...' brings us closer to the right slant, though still I can't help feeling it is awkward and inadvisable to turn it round in this way — especially as it involves adding in a term ('only') that is absent in the source text. If they had wanted to, the writer might well have said 'to take action only with...'.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 29 days (2013-03-11 19:04:04 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Try it this way:

"Not to [take part in any dispute or commence or defend any court or other dispute proceedings or settle or attempt to settle or make any admission concerning any such proceedings] [on behalf of the Principal] without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions)."
Peer comment(s):
disagree Françoise Vogel : imho // cf. l'analyse suggérée dans les "notes" (désolée pour la formule de politesse, qui ne comportait aucun sarcasme).
7 hrs
I didn't take it that way, thanks. :-)
neutral Germaine : C'est l'idée - obtenir l'assentiment du mandant avant d'agir - sauf que la forme ne s'accorde pas à l'intro de la clause et à ce qui suit: l'agent s'engage à... // Sorry, but you presume of the absence of a comma that "should" be there, but just is not.
9 hrs
Sorry, Germaine, but I can't agree here: the 'not' has to be connected to the 'to take' and NOT to the 'without'; the end result may be the same, but the slant is very different...
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Merci Tony"
-1
17 mins

non sans référence préalable au principal.. pour le compte de

Sugg.
Note from asker:
Merci Pierre
Peer comment(s):
disagree Tony M : 'Fraid not, Peter, you've associated that 'not' with the wrong part of the sentence.
10 mins
neutral Germaine : Je ne suis pas d'accord avec Tony - no comma between "Not" and "without" - mais il faudrait quand même dire "non sans en référer au préalable au mandant..."
9 hrs
Something went wrong...
45 mins

non sans en avoir auparavant (préalablement) sollicité le (pris l'avis du)...

"Non sans" seems appropriate to begin this type of statement.
Note from asker:
Merci Peter
Peer comment(s):
disagree Tony M : Yes, but it doesn't interpret the source text correctly; please see my already lengthy explanations in the discussion section above.
1 hr
agree HERBET Abel
1 hr
Thank you
neutral Germaine : Interprétation correcte, mais c'est plus que de "prendre/solliciter l'avis": l'agent a besoin d'un accord au moins implicite - cf. "and then... acting strictly...on express instructions". // Pourquoi compliquer ou élargir?
9 hrs
Ne pourrait-on dire "prendre l'attache" ... ce qui ouvre un champ plus vaste?
Something went wrong...
+1
9 hrs
English term (edited): not without prior reference to the principal...

(pour et au nom du mandant) sans en être convenu au préalable avec celui-ci

Dans les documents juridiques, il est de règle générale d'éviter autant que possible la forme négative, qui tend à compliquer les choses, et cet extrait est un bon exemple.

Il ne faut pas oublier que cet alinéa 2.8 suit le paragraphe d'introduction (comme si 2.1 à 2.7 n'étaient pas là). Par ailleurs, il peut être utile de lire 2.8 en s'en tenant à la forme adoptée dans les alinéa 2.1 à 2.7:

The Agent undertakes and agrees with the Principal at all times during the term of this agreement:
2.1 To act…
2.2 [Except...] neither to act…
2.3 To comply…
2.4 To describe…
2.8 [on behalf of the Principal,] to take part in any… such proceedings [and this] Not without prior reference to the Principal (and then only acting strictly on the Principal's express instructions).

En fait, on veut que l'agent prenne partie pour le mandant en toutes circonstances, mais jamais de sa propre initiative (i.e. sans en discuter/aviser d'abord) le mandant:

L'agent convient des obligations qui suivent avec le mandant et s'engage à les respecter en tout temps durant le terme de la présente convention:…
2.1 Agir…
2.7 Facturer…
2.8 Se porter partie à tout litige, intenter ou contester toute poursuite ou autre procédure judiciaire, négocier ou conclure un règlement ou admettre quelque fait eut égard à telle procédure et [cela][dans chaque cas], pour et au nom du mandant, après [en être convenu] [en avoir conféré] [en avoir discuté] au préalable avec celui-ci (et dès lors, agissant exclusivement selon ses directives expresses).

Pour ma part, j'utiliserais "en être convenu" puisque la "convention" implicite justifie de mettre "et dès lors…" entre parenthèses.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2013-02-10 20:20:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Je me rends compte que dans l'entrée, j'ai copié la question (sans en être convenu au préalable...) mais la traduction en contexte donne bien "après en être convenu au préalable...".

Pour la forme négative, il faudrait écrire: ...pour et au nom du mandant, (mais) jamais sans en avoir convenu au préalable...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2013-02-10 20:54:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Puisque "non sans en être convenu" = "après en être convenu", on peut aussi garder la forme initiale: "Après en être convenu avec le mandant (et dès lors, agissant exclusivement selon ses directives expresses), pour et en son nom, se porter partie à tout litige, intenter ou contester... à telle procédure."
Note from asker:
Merci Germaine
Peer comment(s):
agree Marion Feildel (X) : bravo pour toutes les explications. Inutile de dire que je suis absolument d'accord avec vous sur le sens de la phrase.
12 hrs
Merci, Marion.
disagree Tony M : I maintain my insistence that it MUST be interpreted as 'not... to take'
14 hrs
I respect you opinion, Tony. But it seems that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
agree writeaway : mais oui mais je vois que le grand disagree rouge frappe de nouveau. Dans le temps c'était considéré impoli de faire des commentaires si l'on répondait soi-même, mais c'est devenu une véritable 'tactique' pour certains et on ne respecte plus les natives.
45 days
Merci, writeaway. Le manque de rigueur qu'on rencontre parfois dans certains contrats peut laisser croire a un manque de virgules, mais ce n'est certes pas au traducteur d'en juger. Il s'agit de rendre l'écrit et non d'interpréter la volonté des parties.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search