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.
Explanation: I´m not Mexican, but from the context available I infer “cuestionada” refers to moral integrity.
Source text: "El Cliente no incurrirá en ninguna conducta que pudiera constituir causa justificada para que se le considere Persona Cuestionada".
Translation proposal: “Client will not incur in any conduct that might constitute a justified ground for them to be considered a Person questioned in their (moral) integrity/with dubious (moral) integrity”.
“Cuestionar” also means to “ask” in a neutral way, but not in this case, I believe “Dubious integrity” means here “questionable honesty and ethics”.
https://dle.rae.es/cuestionar?m=form Cuestionar 1. tr. Controvertir un punto dudoso, proponiendo las razones, pruebas y fundamentos de una y otra parte. 2. tr. Poner en duda lo afirmado por alguien.
When delivering the translation, I suggested that the client include a definition of the term under the "definitions" section at the start of the contract, which lists most - yet not all - of the other capitalised terms, or otherwise define the term the first time it appears in the body of the text. I will share this definition with you if I get a reply, although for now it seems they are happy with the proposed translation. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions!
Do you think your client could be contacted to get a firsthand explanation about the meaning of "persona cuestionada"? We have been all speculating here for days, but we need facts to get out of this entanglement. Thank you.
Thanks AT and Robert C. for reconsidering my 'suspect' answer, albeit predicated on the assumption that the party concerned is one 'enquired about' or 'subject to enquiry' (pronounced in American for fans of my otiose comments: 'in-queerie') rather than one 'tipped off about'. The only way I could bring that idea back within ENG contract parameters is to resort to a suspect 'causing reasonable suspicion' or 'guilty of unconscionable conduct'.
I fully agree with you that your reading of this makes sense, and that "undefined, ambiguous terms such as 'questionable person'" are essentially weasel words that have no place in contract drafting. I just can't think of any other way of approaching this in the absence of any definition of the term either in the law or in the contract itself. As a translator, unless you have a high degree of certainty of what the term implies (for example, you're familiar with the relevant civil code so you are fairly certain what the drafter is referring to), there's not a lot you can do in these situations besides contacting the drafter to find out what they meant, or failing that, simply giving an equally vague interpretation of it. If the source text is too vague, it's really up to the contract drafter to do the disambiguation, not us. I must say it's also highly unusual in Mexican contracts, because they nearly always err on the side of redundancy and often go over the top with legal doublets, triplets, and quadruplets if they can think of them (are drafters paid by the word?). Having said that, it may be a good practice to acknowledge this circumstance in the translation.
It's an interesting idea from Adrian, and one that might make sense, except I have never seen this expression used in this context, nor can I find any evidence that the term has been used with this meaning in Mexico. If I were I to come across it I certainly wouldn't expect it to have this meaning, especially as there are other more common ways of expressing the idea of a person acting suspiciously ("sospechosa" being the most obvious one).
I think you should seriously consider Adrian's late contribution. The idea of a "person acting suspiciously" needs to be looked at rather than the notion of "ill repute/disreputable" - in the light of the subject matter of the contract. You didn't tell us this, but if it's some sort of transaction then this could be about the person not being on a black list etc. The context may perhaps suggest a better term than "questionable person".
Not pedantic at all -- that was a rather glaring error on my part :-D. Thanks for that. I was wondering why Grammarly kept nagging me about it. I thought I still had the UK English settings on. ;-)
Quick point of pedantry: compromise is in fact spelled with an "s" (from the root "promise") in most forms of English (I can't speak to Canadian, but I'd imagine it's the same). Saludos!
As Robert said, it is somewhat vague, although, in that context, it seems to refer to any person who engages in any shady (dodgy) dealings or actions that bring disrepute to his/her character.
If I were to opt for using a capitalized term, then I would go for "Disreputable Person" or "Compromised Person."
Alternatively, you can avoid using a capitalized term entirely and replace "persona cuestionada" with "any disreputable person" or "any person who has brought himself or herself into disrepute." I'd go this route, as the term isn't properly defined elsewhere, despite being capitalized; this happens all the time in badly written contracts.
"Person" could also refer to a company, so to avoid the himself/herself/itself wordiness, you could also consider using the word "entity" instead.
Thank you. Well, in that case you can be equally vague in your translation. The idea of "persona cuestionada" here is so subjective as to be meaningless, like saying "don't do business with anyone who's a bit iffy". It's terrible contract drafting. I'd probably go for something like "questionable person" myself, as I think even "person of questionable integrity" may be too specific here.
Thank you for your contributions. So, the term does reappear in the text, but only in the subsequent sentence, which lists a set of restrictions including:
"vender y/o transferir el Alcance del suministro a cualquier Persona Cuestionada o, en todo caso, involucrar en la transacción a cualquier Persona Cuestionada";
There is no definition of the term provided in the contract itself, despite the capitalization.
Hi Toni, don't get me wrong, I do think this probably has the meaning you've suggested, but if there's no definition here then you're really free to translate it any way you like--it will have no virtually bearing on the contractual obligations because there is no definition of the term "persona cuestionada" in Mexico's Civil Code, which governs contracts. Indeed, if the term "Persona Cuestionada" doesn't appear anywhere else in the contract, then you arguably don't even need to refer to a person, but rather the conduct itself. Regarding whether Matthew would have asked the question if the definition is already in the contract, I have no way of knowing that, which is why I asked the question of him :-) I really just wanted to know either way, i.e., if the term is used throughout the contract or just in this one place.
Robert, a couple of good points you mention here. Word capitalization is nothing rare in contract law, including Mexican contracts, sure (you know about this much more that I do). Please note that "Cliente" is also capitalized in the reference phrase, so this phenomenon has no particular meaning here, I believe. As for the definitions of key terms, yes, they do appear sometimes in well drafted documents, at their end normally, but I do not believe this is the case here, otherwise Matthew wouldn´t have asked this question, would he? As for the meaning itself, when I read "conducta" and then I read "causa justificada para (...), the context seems then quite clear to me, but I might be wrong, I concede.
Yes, Michael thanks. I can think of some reasons why there would be such a clause, but again, it would only work if the contract were to define the conduct in question.
The term you mention is capitalised, so could it be that there is a definition somewhere else in the contract? If not, the term is so vague as to be virtually useless in a contract, since there is no legal definition in Mexican contract law of a "persona cuestionada", not that I know of anyway. If it indeed is supposed to mean "person of questionable integrity" (which I sense it might well do, thanks Toni!), then that might also be quite a tall order here in the land of the "mordida" (although, thankfully, attitudes towards corruption are beginning to change under the current administration, the federal one at least).
TEBBAL ABDessetar Algeria Local time: 00:11 Works in field Native speaker of: Arabic
39 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +4
Person questioned in their moral integrity/of dubious integrity
Explanation: I´m not Mexican, but from the context available I infer “cuestionada” refers to moral integrity.
Source text: "El Cliente no incurrirá en ninguna conducta que pudiera constituir causa justificada para que se le considere Persona Cuestionada".
Translation proposal: “Client will not incur in any conduct that might constitute a justified ground for them to be considered a Person questioned in their (moral) integrity/with dubious (moral) integrity”.
“Cuestionar” also means to “ask” in a neutral way, but not in this case, I believe “Dubious integrity” means here “questionable honesty and ethics”.
https://dle.rae.es/cuestionar?m=form Cuestionar 1. tr. Controvertir un punto dudoso, proponiendo las razones, pruebas y fundamentos de una y otra parte. 2. tr. Poner en duda lo afirmado por alguien.
Toni Castano Spain Local time: 01:11 Specializes in field Native speaker of: Spanish PRO pts in category: 32