Eliza Hall Jan 11, 2019:

@ Germaine pour clarifier Yes, you didn't say otherwise -- I was referring back to the original text. Sorry for any lack of clarity there.

Germaine Jan 10, 2019:

Eliza, That's still not two parties voluntarily assuming an obligation towards a third party
I totally agree! (and I can’t see where I say otherwise).

...if the original text is incorrect, we should translate it as is (including the error). But not unless we first check the source
Again, I totally agree! Je me fais un point d’honneur de signaler au client une possible erreur, une incohérence, un non-sens et parfois même un oubli. L’expérience doit servir et le suivi des modifications (track changes) est une bien belle chose! Pour le reste, la décision revient au client!

Germaine Jan 10, 2019:

B D Finch, Contracts can be tripartite... : I agree. Did I say otherwise anywhere?

As you note... : I didn’t comment on the grammar, etc. As for the drafting of the particular segment discussed, Eliza already explained where the problem is.

B D Finch Jan 10, 2019:

@Eliza Let's hope that the client isn't only paying a translator, but that they also intend to pay a lawyer to check their document. Agree with your comment that it's a good idea to "... confirm with the client that they indeed want us to use that text (it's always possible the client sent us the wrong version) and that they want us to translate the errors as-is." In the meantime, their contract with the translator doesn't cover legal advice.

Eliza Hall Jan 10, 2019:

@Germaine You wrote, "Dans le cas que mentionne l’auteur, je comprends que deux parties (vendeur et acheteur) ont 'librement assumé un engagement' l’une envers l’autre (bilatéralité du contrat), mais l’une des deux a vendu à un 'sub-buyer' qui est, en l’occurrence, le plaignant."

That's still not two parties voluntarily assuming an obligation towards a third party, the plaintiff. If the original contract was assignable, i.e. the sale to the sub-buyer is valid, then you still only have two parties--the sale just changed who one party is. And if it wasn't assignable, then the party who sold to the sub-buyer remains obligated to the other original party--not to the sub-buyer/plaintiff.

I do agree that if the original text is incorrect, we should translate it as is (including the error). But not unless we first check the source (that's why I asked Adamhans where it came from -- it's got both a legal error, which we're discussing, and some typos) and confirm with the client that they indeed want us to use that text (it's always possible the client sent us the wrong version) and that they want us to translate the errors as-is.

Eliza Hall Jan 10, 2019:

@BDFinch - of course contracts CAN have >2 parties Theoretically there's no limit to how many parties a contract could have. But the original text is talking about the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a contract is. And a contract is not defined as having two parties who undertake an obligation towards a third party.

Omitting the typos, the text says, "the concept of 'contract' is construed under the Brussels Convention independently of any particular national law **and defined as** a transaction between **parties** who have voluntarily undertaken an obligation towards the plaintiff."

No... it... is not. That isn't how the Brussels Convention or any other legal text "defines" a contract.

B D Finch Jan 10, 2019:

Correction That previous comment should have been @Germaine.

B D Finch Jan 10, 2019:

@Eliza Contracts can be tripartite (or even involve more than three parties). I've been involved in some and there are plenty of reliable references to such contracts:
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-630-2311
Jun 30, 2016 - The Supreme Court has held that the supply of a financial report by a firm of accountants, paid for by the taxpayer under a tripartite contract with ..."

As you note, there are quite a few grammatical errors in the source text, e.g. "In respect to," "defined has an transaction," "by reference of the substantive law," and errors of drafting, e.g. "one has to". However, I think the meaning of this particular term is clear.

Germaine Jan 9, 2019:

Eliza, Dans le cas que mentionne l’auteur, je comprends que deux parties (vendeur et acheteur) ont "librement assumé un engagement" l’une envers l’autre (bilatéralité du contrat), mais l’une des deux a vendu à un "sub-buyer" qui est, en l’occurrence, le plaignant. D’où la décision, qui se lit comme suit:
Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is to be understood as meaning that it does not apply to an action between a sub-buyer of goods and the manufacturer, who is not the seller, relating to defects in those goods or to their unsuitability for their intended purpose.

Je comprends que la phrase originale est bancale telle quelle, mais "l’amélioration" apportée ne correspond certes pas non plus à la "définition d’un contrat" (valide). Comme le contexte est défini, peut-être devrait-on s’en tenir au texte original plutôt que de tenter de le corriger? Ce ne serait qu’un de plus de ces (trop) nombreux cas où il faut "comprendre ce qu’on veut dire" même si ça ne le dit pas. Sinon, il faut retravailler la formulation...

Daryo Jan 9, 2019:

I have to agree on that bit - normally there would be only one "other party".

Possibly the text was partially reworded, and the author omitted to check if the corrected version makes sense. Or possibly the author lost track of what should agree with what. Still the intended meaning is clear.

Eliza Hall Jan 9, 2019:

@ Daryo The strangeness is that it's plural "parties" that have undertaken an obligation toward the plaintiff. Most contracts actually are between two parties, not three, and that's how it's typically presented in hypotheticals.

If the hypothetical concerns litigation, it would still be "a transaction under which a party has undertaken an obligation toward the plaintiff."

As Germaine points out, it's in the singular in the ECJ Handte decision, which speaks of an "engagement librement assumé d'une partie envers une autre."

Germaine Jan 9, 2019:

(suite) L’article 5 de la Convention de Bruxelles se lit:

Le défendeur domicilié sur le territoire d'un État contractant peut être attrait, dans un autre État contractant:
A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued:
1. en matière contractuelle, devant le tribunal du lieu où l'obligation a été ou doit être exécutée;
2. en matière d'obligation alimentaire, devant le tribunal du lieu où le créancier d'aliments a son domicile ou sa résidence habituelle;
3. en matière délictuelle ou quasi délictuelle, devant le tribunal du lieu où le fait dommageable s'est produit;
4. s'il s'agit d'une action en réparation de dommage ou d'une action en restitution fondées sur une infraction, devant le tribunal saisi de l'action publique, dans la mesure où, selon sa loi, ce tribunal peut connaître de l'action civile;
5. s'il s'agit d'une contestation relative à l'exploitation d'une succursale, d'une agence ou de tout autre établissement, devant le tribunal du lieu de leur situation.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR-EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX...

Germaine Jan 9, 2019:

Eliza, The author refers to ECJ, Handte, 17/6/92, C 26/91. I found the decision:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61...

It seems to refer to this :
La notion de "matière contractuelle" au sens de l'article 5, point 1, de la convention du 27 septembre 1968 concernant la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale,... qne saurait être comprise comme visant une situation dans laquelle il n'existe aucun engagement librement assumé d'une partie envers une autre...

Et tu as raison quant à la troisième roue du carosse!

Daryo Jan 9, 2019:

there is nothing strange in "between parties who have voluntarily undertaken an obligation towards the plaintiff."

Question of context:

the whole text is about litigation i.e. ONLY about contracts that went wrong and resulted in litigation (=> one of the contracting parties become a "plaintiff"), not about contracts in general.

Eliza Hall Jan 9, 2019:

Typos (errors) There are several typos or obvious errors in the text you've posted. For instance, "defined has an transaction" should be "defined as a transaction."

Are the errors in the original? If so, I hesitate to propose a translation because I don't want to translate mistakes.

As a lawyer, I find it strange that a contract would be defined as happening "between parties who have voluntarily undertaken an obligation towards the plaintiff." That makes it sound like a contract involves at least three parties, two of whom have undertaken an obligation towards the third. That's just wrong; the classic contract involves two parties who undertake obligations towards each other. So particularly if the typographic errors in your post are in the original, I have to suspect that there is a problem with the original.