Adrian MM. (X) Nov 4, 2014:

@GillW - leaning to sui juris I can see some merit in the authority line of thought if means 'sui juris' namely of full age and with full capacity, so majeurs et capables. But I see no problem in original French drafting techniques that need not be backed up by G/hits or precedents. There seems to be a misconception that contracts in all languages need to follow a template slavishly. There are many one-off wordings most of us come across day in, day out: http://lexinter.net/LOTWVers4/guideredaction.htm

Daryo Nov 4, 2014:

'with authority and acting in an official capacity' doesn't make any sense in this ST - you don't participate in the creation of a new company 'in an official capacity' you do it EITHER for yourself OR on someone else's mandate - basics of company law
I think that Tim06 is on the right track - each of the signatory (Founder) is acting either in his/her own name and/or on behalf of someone else. THAT makes sense in the real world.

GillW (MCIL) (asker) Nov 4, 2014:

I think it is a mistake to assume that 'qualite' and 'es-qualite' are mutually exclusive. I do not read it that way. All of the founders are, in fact, described as 'qualites ET es-qualites' so it is not a case of either/or. In fact, after reading all the comments, and taking a look at my old-fashioned dictionary I think it may mean 'with authority and acting in an official capacity'. The expression 'qualites et es-qualites' has about two (dubious) hits in Google so it could in fact by some sort of typo.

Daryo Nov 4, 2014:

there must some clues elsewhere in this text; what is the basic meaning of "qualités" and of "ès-qualités" is not too difficult to find - the devil is in the small details - like finding out how some founders are "qualités" or "ès-qualités", and in relation to what or who?

There should be somewhere a list of all founders of this company (in UK it would at end)

There might be there a clue as to why some founders are in the list as "qualités" and other as "ès-qualités".

Tim Webb Nov 4, 2014:

Tom Thumb How can you say that an expression that's in the source text is a "reference"? Drafters make mistakes sometimes, and I don't see why the translator has to cover up such mistakes to avoid "admitting defeat". We all know what the drafter MEANT (it's a stock phrase), so why didn't the drafter get it right?
(but as I say in your answer box below, show me a REFERENCE for "qualité et ès-qualités", and I will gladly accept defeat)

Adrian MM. (X) Nov 4, 2014:

No TN @ Tim 06 The French is unambiguous. No translator's note - as an admission of defeat - is needed.

Tim Webb Nov 4, 2014:

I suppose that is all it can mean, although that is not what is written. I would advise some kind of translator's note

GillW (MCIL) (asker) Nov 4, 2014:

thanks for this input. This expression is repeated throughout the documents so I tend to think it is not a mistake ... Could the 'qualite' mean personally as in your suggestion?

Tim Webb Nov 4, 2014:

The usual expression is "personnellement et ès-qualités" (in their individual and official capacities). I can only assume that "qualité et ès-qualités" must be a mistake..