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
approved in writing from time to time
drawing number
Nov 11, 2020 12:03
3 yrs ago
34 viewers *
English term

against

Non-PRO English to French Other Law: Contract(s)
Hello,

I am translating Terms and conditions of sale.
Here comes this long sentence :

Nevertheless, the Buyer will be entitled to sell these objects to a third party within the framework of the normal carrying on of his business and to deliver them on condition, if the company so required, that the Buyer, as long as he has not fully discharged his debt to the Company, shall hand over to the Company the claims he has against the Buyer emanating from this transaction.

The Buyer shall hand over to the Company the claims he has against the Buyer...

Am I getting nuts or something is wrong here?

Je comprends que l'Acheteur remet à la Société les créances qu'il détient du fait de cette transaction (avec le tiers) mais que fait ce "against the Buyer" à la fin de la phrase ?

Merci pour votre aide.
Proposed translations (French)
4 contre
Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

PRO (2): AllegroTrans, Daryo

When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.

How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:

An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)

A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).

Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.

When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.

* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.

Discussion

Germaine Nov 13, 2020:
Je suis d'accord sur un point: il n'y a rien de sorcier dans l'interprétation de ce paragraphe, c'est une clause relativement standard de transport de créance: l'Acheteur qui vend à un tiers devra (si c'est un préalable) céder sa créance (i.e. la dette que ce tiers a envers l'Acheteur) à la Société de sorte que la Société puisse récupérer (le cas échéant) la totalité du solde du prix de vente directement auprès de ce tiers. Et ce qui émane" de la transaction, c'est l'obligation de payer (la réclamation éventuelle), certainement pas l'Acheteur. Comme le fait bien remarquer Véronique, "The Buyer shall hand over... the claims he has against the Buyer" ne se dit pas comme tel. Même si on "comprend" la finalité.
VeroniquePhelut (asker) Nov 13, 2020:
@ Germaine and Daryo Il y a les deux lectures, les créances qui découlent de la transaction (vente des objets) ou l'acheteur qui découle de cette transaction. C'est bien le Buyer et ensuite, emanating from this transaction, qui m'ont fait douter. J'ai opté pour : l'Acheteur transporte à la Société les créances qu'il perçoit du tiers acheteur découlant de cette transaction (la vente des objets). Je laisse un commentaire au client et la traduction laisse place aux deux interprétations.
Daryo Nov 13, 2020:
Looks like the problem is not in the word "against", but in interpreting correctly the whole sentence, especially the bit about "emanating from ..."
Daryo Nov 13, 2020:
It is an unexpected use of "emanating" but the meaning is still far from cryptic. Instead of

the Buyer emanating from this transaction = the party that is "the Buyer" in this transaction

you could rephrase it in a way that is closer to "emanating":

the Buyer emanating from this transaction = the [third] party that emerges as "the (new/next) Buyer" once this transaction is completed.

Yes, it's the same word "Buyer", but it doesn't necessarily means that it's the same "Buyer".

"Nevertheless, the Buyer will be entitled to sell ..." it's about one of the parties in the present contract - the "Buyer" from the viewpoint of this present contract
vs
the Buyer emanating from this transaction is about a party that would be "the Buyer" NOT in the present contract but in a possible future transaction.

I don't see why it would be so surprising that in the same sentence the same word could refer to two different objects.
If you have in the same sentence a mention of a small tree and a tall tree, you won't assume it's the same tree?

Here: the Buyer (implicitly: in the present contract) and the one "emanating from this(/a future) transaction" are not the same.
Germaine Nov 12, 2020:
1. A person "emanating" from a transaction ? Ok. I'm not a native. But as far as I can see, a thing emanates from (here: claim(s) emanate(s) from the transaction) and people emanates something (here, you emanate strangeness). 2. Ce n'est pas impossible, mais comme "Buyer" est un terme défini, je serais vraiment surprise qu'il désigne à la fois l'Acheteur et l'[a]cheteur d'un Acheteur.
Daryo Nov 12, 2020:
There is in fact nothing wrong with this text All is needed is a very attentive reading / analysis of the whole sentence.

Nevertheless, the Buyer will be entitled to sell these objects to a third party within the framework of the normal carrying on of his business and to deliver them on condition, if the company so required, that the Buyer, as long as he has not fully discharged his debt to the Company, shall hand over to the Company the claims he has against the Buyer emanating from this transaction.

the Buyer emanating from this transaction = the party that is "the Buyer" in this transaction

where "this transaction" is the one described at the beginnning of the sentence:

[the party that is] the Buyer [in the present contract] will be entitled to sell these objects to a third party

IOW it is clearly stated that "the Buyer emanating from this transaction" IS NOT the party called "Buyer" in the present contract (the one that is the ST to translate) but a third party that would be a possible "Buyer's Buyer".
Germaine Nov 11, 2020:
Delphine a raison: le dernier "Buyer" devrait se lire "third party". Il s'agit d'un transport de créance:

Néanmoins, l’Acheteur aura le droit de vendre ces objets à un tiers dans le cours normal de ses activités, et de les livrer mais, si la Société y est tenue, à la condition que l’Acheteur, tant qu’il n’aura pas entièrement acquitté sa dette envers la Société, transporte à la Société toute créance [contre le tiers] découlant de cette transaction.

Perso, j'en glisserais un mot au client. Si le client ne réagit pas, je traduirais la fin de la phrase par: "...transporte à la Société toute créance découlant de cette transaction (= tout droit de l'Acheteur sur le paiement de l'objet vendu).
VeroniquePhelut (asker) Nov 11, 2020:
@ Daryo Totally unintentional mistake...
VeroniquePhelut (asker) Nov 11, 2020:
@ Maité Oui, merci, le B majuscule m'avait induite en erreur.
VeroniquePhelut (asker) Nov 11, 2020:
@ Delphine E Right, I think the capital B of the latest buyer is wrong, et donc il s'agit du tiers acheteur. Merci !
Daryo Nov 11, 2020:
[Non-PRO] ??? Really? You put that by mistake, or you really think that any general purpose dictionary will help you solve this rebus?
Maïté Mendiondo-George Nov 11, 2020:
Against envers - à l'encontre de L'acheteur a le droit de vendre le bien avant d'avoir apuré sa dette envers son vendeur - en revanche la société vendeuse pourra réclamer le reste de la dette au nouvel acheteur . il s'agit d'une subrogation dans les droits .. et comme le dit Germaine un transfert de créance
D. Eme Diptrans Nov 11, 2020:
Il me semble ici que le dernier " buyer" réfère ici au tiers qui est lui-même acheteur puisque le "Buyer sells these objects to a third party"

Proposed translations

94 days

contre

''against'' étant une préposition n'a pas assez de sens seule.En association avec un ou d'autres mots, elle prends forme.Le sens général qui lui est connu est ''contre''.Selon le dictionnaire PONS ou encore Oxford-Hachette, against varie ses sens.
Example sentence:

Mets le bois contre le mur.

Il est contre l'indépendance

Reference:

https://fr.pons.com/traduction/anglais-fran%C3%A7ais/against#result-sig-61618324-0

Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search