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
No. de réquisition
Ca va le faire!

Glossary entry

French term or phrase:

acquéreur

English translation:

Purchaser

Added to glossary by Lisa Reutenauer
Aug 9, 2023 14:26
9 mos ago
49 viewers *
French term

acquéreur

Non-PRO French to English Bus/Financial Law: Contract(s) acquéreur et vendeur
je traduis un acte de vente en anglais américain. the two parties are ''acquereur'' and ''vendeur''.
Before anyone tells me to look at past entries, I already did. And if I missed some and there is somewhere in the term search entries a clear answer to my inquiry already, please forgive me.
When I look at the different possible translation people have suggested, I see:
acquirer, buyer, purchaser.
from my research, it seems ''acquirer'' is not really the most accurate and equivalent in this case as it tends to refer specifically to financial institutions, even tough, someone said, in one termsearch result entry, that it was the best option.
Technically, if someone is the seller, the other is a purchaser or a buyer. Don't you think that would fit better in this case?
Proposed translations (English)
5 +5 Purchaser
4 +4 buyer
5 acquirer (or acquiring party)
3 transferee
Change log

Aug 10, 2023 09:18: JaneD changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"

Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

Non-PRO (3): Rachel Fell, abe(L)solano, JaneD

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

Daryo Aug 10, 2023:
@ Lisa Reutenauer Thanks for the additional context.

It confirms what was to be expected.

namely, there are "pairs" that CAN NOT be "recombined / rearranged".

If one party is the deceased the other party can ONLY be a "heir"

If one party is "giving a gift" the other party can ONLY be "the receiver of the gift" - NOTHING ELSE.

In the same way if one party is "selling" the other party can ONLY be "buying", no ifs, no buts, no maybes.
Lisa Reutenauer (asker) Aug 10, 2023:
clarification and context Thank you all for your contributions!
Afer reading your comments, I realize I should've given more context, obviously.
So it is clearly is sale contract, the price of the of the property is even listed later in the document.
''Acquéreur'' appears right from the introduction of the document, under the title: ''identification des parties''
1. ''VENDEUR'' blablabla
2. ''ACQUEREUR'' blablabla

So I would have to agree that it is safe to say that purchaser or buyer would work here.
De plus, il semble qu'en français, ''acquéreur'' est un synonyme de ''acheteur'' mais préfére dans le domaine juridique. https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/acquéreur/801
AllegroTrans Aug 10, 2023:
Also, viz Jennifer "....the case where the acquéreur is paying for the property with a 100% mortgage; in that scenario, the 'seller' is still the 'seller', but the acquéreur only gets 'possession', while the ownership is transferred to the bank..."

This is decidedly not the case (at least not where I live) - the bank does NOT acquire ownership, but simply a registered charge/lien over the property. The buyer acquires full title, subject to that charge.
Conor McAuley Aug 10, 2023:
Hear, hear!
AllegroTrans Aug 10, 2023:
Nothing here... suggests anything other than a sale (viz. "acte de vente") - in which case it is perfectly reasonable to presume that there will be a seller and a buyer. I can see no "severe damage" or anything "sloppy" in presuming anything else, unless (and only unless) there is something distinctly complex in Lisa's text. Clearly, Jennifer's unfortunate experience arose from something that was distinctly complex, or so it seems.
I put my house up for sale: I am the seller and the person who makes an accepted offer and approaches a conveyancer to commence the legal process becomes the buyer. As any estate agent or conveyancer will tell you, these terms seller and buyer and any negotiations are "strictly subject to contract".
Jennifer Levey Aug 10, 2023:
@Conor there is nothing in the source text to suggest anything problematical
What source text? Asker hasn't posted even a short extract from it.

Much ado about nothing.
It seems that you - and most folk here - have no first-hand experience of the severe damage that can be done when translating legal documents without due consideration of the legal significance of the source and chosen target terms in their respective jurisdictional contexts.

Translating acquéreur as 'buyer' or 'purchaser' is tantamount to imposing the translator's invalid legal interpretation of acquéreur in the French-language jurisdiction. Legal interpretation of the document must remain in the hands and minds of lawyers and the courts, and not be adulterated by lazy and/or uncaring language professionals relying only on the habitual terminology of the target-language.

In legal translation, translating the words is the easy part (unless defined otherwise by law, words have their usual meaning as found in any generalist dictionary); in contrast, conveying the proper legal significance of those words, as used in the source jurisdiction, can challenge even the best of us.
Conor McAuley Aug 10, 2023:
Given that there is nothing in the source text to suggest anything problematical, Purchaser or Buyer will do just fine.

You're overthinking it, people.

Much ado about nothing.
Emmanuella Aug 10, 2023:
https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/juridi/i...
Jennifer Levey Aug 9, 2023:
(contd.) The question here is not "What do they put in English-language contracts?"
As translators, we need to ask ourselves "What is the true underlying significance of acquéreur in the French-language acte de vente, in the context of the legislation of the country where the acte has been signed?
It is that understanding that needs to be conveyed in the translation, not a supposedly 'equivalent' word that happens to be found in English-language documents drafted in different legislative contexts.
Failure to reflect the significance, and instead resorting to mere 'word-swapping' between languages, can (and in some cases actually does) cause enormous financial damage to the individuals involved.
Jennifer Levey Aug 9, 2023:
@Tony and others The problem here is not the (undeniable) fact that acquéreur is 'most often' translated as 'buyer' or 'purchaser'. The problem is that that sloppy translation leaves the way wide open for malicious legal arguments as to what are the rights of the persons forming the 'acquiring party' - especially in cases where they have not made equal contributions to the price paid, or worse still, where one of them has paid the entire price..
Tony M Aug 9, 2023:
@ Asker I agree with Jennifer's caveat about the specific use of this term, although in my own experience, it is most often used by default, without any arrière-pensée.
Conor McAuley Aug 9, 2023:
I've never seen "acheteur" in a real estate sale contract, in 20 years of professional translation, the word "acquéreur" is just the slightly fancy word that's used, it has no "undertones" and carries no hidden meaning, in my little opinion.
Jennifer Levey Aug 9, 2023:
@Phil It's possible they've chosen this word because it's not an outright purchase but something else

It's far more likely they use this 'generic' word to refer to the party that will have future 'possession' of the property precisely to avoid making any unwarranted (and potentially damaging) assumptions as regards who the future 'owner' will be.
Daryo Aug 9, 2023:
if the other party is "le vendeur" than the choice is reduced to no choice at all - the other party can ONLY be a "buyer" (or any strict synonym like "purchaser") IOW someone who gets ownership by paying the purchase price, at the exclusion of any other way of gaining ownership (like donation, inheritance, barter, adverse possession or whatever else).

Makes no difference whatsoever if the buyer pays with own money, or with money borrowed from a bank or coming from any other source - that party is still "the buyer" as far the contract with a party called "le vendeuir" is concerned.
philgoddard Aug 9, 2023:
It's possible they've chosen this word because it's not an outright purchase but something else. Otherwise you can say purchaser or acquirer.
Yassine El Bouknify Aug 9, 2023:
In this context, the term "acquéreur" can be translated as both "buyer" and "purchaser." Both terms accurately convey the idea of someone who is acquiring or purchasing something, such as a property. "Buyer" is commonly used in everyday language, while "purchaser" has a slightly more formal tone. Either term would fit well in the context of an act of sale document.

Proposed translations

+5
18 mins
Selected

Purchaser

Purchaser is the correct term in a legal context.

Usually takes an initial capital letter (higher case).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2023-08-09 15:37:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Upper case I meant!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2023-08-09 15:43:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Confidence level too high, apologies.

I think Tony is "more right" than me, so to speak.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 22 hrs (2023-08-11 13:01:11 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Because I can never resist a bit of Bridge: https://books.google.fr/books?id=rQAKtn-XjzIC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7...
Peer comment(s):
agree Tony M : Only takes a capital letter where they have been identified in the Preamble, and are hereinafter referred to as the 'Purchaser'
37 mins
Thanks Tony! Yes, absolutely correct, "termes définis" or similar section/preamble.
agree Yolanda Broad
1 hr
Thanks Yolanda!
agree ormiston
3 hrs
Thanks ormiston!
agree Daryo : also
17 hrs
Thanks Daryo!
agree AllegroTrans
2 days 5 hrs
Thanks Chris! Enjoy the weekend...avec modération, of course!
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "seems the context clearly implies that the acquéreur buys the property, and that ''acquirer'' can lead to misunderstanding in the USA where ''acquirer'' does not typically refer to a purchaser."
+4
58 mins

buyer

In my translations of these documents, I prefer to use the modern, plain EN term 'buyer', which generally fits very well with a US real-estate context, which frequently refers to buyers / sellers, buying / selling, etc.
Peer comment(s):
agree Daryo
12 mins
agree Conor McAuley : Yes, there's a very strong argument for using "buyer" in a US context.
17 mins
agree AllegroTrans : "Buyer" is now practically standard among estate agents and conveyancers in England and Wales. I cannot speak for USA.
2 hrs
neutral philgoddard : I prefer buyer too, but purchaser is perfectly OK.
2 hrs
agree Joshua Parker
4 hrs
Something went wrong...
1 hr

acquirer (or acquiring party)

acquisition and buying/purchasing are not the same thing.
acquirer and purchaser/buyer are not the same thing.

If I want a skateboard there are several ways I can acquire one. For example:
- I could go to a store and receive a skateboard in exchange for financial consideration (my hard-won pocket money).
- I could borrow a skateboard from my friend.
- I could go to the local skate-park with a baseball bat, knock some random kid over the head with it and glide gracefully away towards the setting sun.

Only one of those methods of acquisition - the first one - constitutes 'purchase' or 'buying', and has the effect of transferring legal ownership of the skateboard away from the 'seller' to me as 'acquirer' (and owner).
The other two methods only transfer 'possession'; ownership remains with the individual I borrowed or stole it from.

If Asker's acte de vente says acquéreur, it means what it says - and deliberately makes no assumptions as to the transfer of property rights to the acquéreur.

Consider, for example, the case where the acquéreur is paying for the property with a 100% mortgage; in that scenario, the 'seller' is still the 'seller', but the acquéreur only gets 'possession', while the ownership is transferred to the bank which financed the transaction à titre onéreux as they say in some French-language jurisdictions.

Consider also the case where a married couple have chosen a matrimonial régime which involves the sharing of assets acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts), and together they 'acquire' a new house - which is paid for entirely from the prior savings of one of the spouses. For as long as the marriage exists, the spouse who paid the price 'acquired' à titre onéreux the entire asset represented by the building; in contrast, the other spouse only acquired such rights as are associated with the fact that the house was their intended place of residence as a married couple (right of abode, etc.), and a purely speculative interest in the value of the property when the regime is terminated.

Conclusion: if the acte de vente says acquéreur, the transltion must make no assumptions as to the financial or marital status of the one or more individuals who constitute the 'acquiring party'.
Peer comment(s):
neutral AllegroTrans : A very pedantic answer: I see "buyer" used invariably in English (and Welsh) conveyancing, albeit technically this will often mean "buyer-to-be" (subject to contract)
1 hr
Pedantic? Maybe, but it's based on personal experience of having a sloppy translation of 'acquéreur' (into Spanish, as 'comprador') maliciously interpreted by someone to claim half the proceeds of the sale of a property paid for entirely with my savings.
disagree Daryo : FYI when a buyer of a property pays for it by taking a mortgage the bank DOES NOT own the property - it only gets a lien on the property / you're splitting non-existing hairs./ Notwithstanding the specifics of your case HERE there is ONLY ONE possibility.
16 hrs
In real life, in my personal experience, what you blithely write off as 'splitting non-existing hairs' has cost me tens of thousands of Euros and 10 years of legal action on both sides of the Atlantic.
agree Adrian MM. : with acquirer : found in EN conveyances of land & *chattels'/ goods + a neutral answer that dodges the purchaser = mortgagee/lessee conundrum in the UK Law of Property Act 1925. Daryo's 'analysis': the bank is the EQUITABLE owner/the buyer the legal owner
23 hrs
Thanks. As you have confirmed, it's a 'neutral' answer that avoids unwarranted and potentially erroneous legal interpretations.
Something went wrong...
1 day 1 hr

transferee

acquirer might be OK, but transferee works well with transferor. NB purchaser includes mortgagee in EN law.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 1 hr (2023-08-10 15:51:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

UK Law of Property 1925 (xxi) “Purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, *mortgagee* or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property except that in Part I of this Act'

PS I have made this point before and cannot keep repeating it https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/2...
Peer comment(s):
neutral AllegroTrans : This works for docs such as Land Registry but it would not be used on a property sale agreement and in any case the UK Law of Property Act 1925 has no force in any Fr-spkg jurisdiction
1 hr
neutral Daryo : although technically correct, i's too wide in scope - it would also include "acquisition" by way of gift which (pretty blindingly obviously??) would NOT have been done by "le vendeur", (or even barter)
6 hrs
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search