Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
prove actual higher or lower costs
French translation:
Le droit de chacune des parties de prouver que les coûts .. sont plus (..) élevés n\'est pas affecté
Added to glossary by
Caroline Tsaganas
Jan 30, 2017 09:18
7 yrs ago
English term
France
Accuracy is my philosophy
Native in: French 
Works in: English to French, German to French, Greek to French
prove actual higher or lower costs
English to French
Law/Patents
Law: Contract(s)
Ventes de produits techniques
"Either party’s rights to prove actual higher or lower costs remains unaffected. »
Je ne suis pas sûre de bien saisir le sens de cette phrase.
Elle apparaît après une clause stipulant qu’en cas de retard de livraison causé par l’acheteur, des frais de stockage seront facturés.
Je ne suis pas satisfaite de ma proposition car je trouve qu’elle ne fait pas sens:
"Les droits de chaque partie d'attester de frais réels plus faibles ou plus élevés demeurent inchangés. »
Merci pour vos avis et suggestions.
Je ne suis pas sûre de bien saisir le sens de cette phrase.
Elle apparaît après une clause stipulant qu’en cas de retard de livraison causé par l’acheteur, des frais de stockage seront facturés.
Je ne suis pas satisfaite de ma proposition car je trouve qu’elle ne fait pas sens:
"Les droits de chaque partie d'attester de frais réels plus faibles ou plus élevés demeurent inchangés. »
Merci pour vos avis et suggestions.
Proposed translations
(French)
| 4 | Le droit de chacune des parties de prouver que les coûts .. sont plus (..) élevés n'est pas affecté |
Daryo
|
| 3 +1 | justifier de frais réels supérieurs ou inférieurs |
Tony M
|
Proposed translations
16 hrs
English term (edited):
Either party’s rights to prove actual higher or lower costs remains unaffected
Selected
Le droit de chacune des parties de prouver que les coûts .. sont plus (..) élevés n'est pas affecté
Either party’s rights to prove actual higher or lower costs remains unaffected
implied: in some previous clause some costs were estimated / fixed to some flat-rate amount - what this clause says is that either party can ask for the real costs to be taken into account, by proving that they are higher or lower than the fixed-rate/set amounts.
Le droit de chacune des parties [contractuelles] de prouver que les coûts réels encourus sont plus (ou moins) élevés n'est pas affecté.
autre variante:
Chacune des parties aura néanmoins le droit de prouver que les coûts réels encourus sont plus (ou moins) élevés.
implied: in some previous clause some costs were estimated / fixed to some flat-rate amount - what this clause says is that either party can ask for the real costs to be taken into account, by proving that they are higher or lower than the fixed-rate/set amounts.
Le droit de chacune des parties [contractuelles] de prouver que les coûts réels encourus sont plus (ou moins) élevés n'est pas affecté.
autre variante:
Chacune des parties aura néanmoins le droit de prouver que les coûts réels encourus sont plus (ou moins) élevés.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "merci. C’est tout à fait ça."
+1
48 mins
justifier de frais réels supérieurs ou inférieurs
« Sans préjudice au droit de chaque partie de... »
My only qualm is about WHY they would want to prove lower costs? Unless it is about the liable party contesting a claim for excessive costs from the injured party? If this is the case, then probably 'justifier de...' wouldn't do any longer and you'd need to find a different solution for 'prove'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 heure (2017-01-30 11:10:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I disagree with Gilles' analysis here, as I think 'prove' in this source text is tantamount to 'provide proof of...' = 'fournir justificatifs' — this is a rather different sense of 'prove' to that found in 'attester', which seems to me a lot closer to 'attest' in EN.
It is clear that if either party wishes to dispute the scale of the penalty charges billed, they will need to be able to 'prove' that the actual charges were higher or lower.
My only qualm is about WHY they would want to prove lower costs? Unless it is about the liable party contesting a claim for excessive costs from the injured party? If this is the case, then probably 'justifier de...' wouldn't do any longer and you'd need to find a different solution for 'prove'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 heure (2017-01-30 11:10:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I disagree with Gilles' analysis here, as I think 'prove' in this source text is tantamount to 'provide proof of...' = 'fournir justificatifs' — this is a rather different sense of 'prove' to that found in 'attester', which seems to me a lot closer to 'attest' in EN.
It is clear that if either party wishes to dispute the scale of the penalty charges billed, they will need to be able to 'prove' that the actual charges were higher or lower.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Christian Fournier
28 mins
|
|
Merci, Christian !
|
|
| disagree |
GILLES MEUNIER
: attester me semble plus adéquat
31 mins
|
|
Why not submit your answer then? I'm not at all sure that correctly conveys the EN sense of 'prove' here.
|
|
| agree |
Peter LEGUIE
: Yes, Tony, but I might also have used "apporter le preuve", although this could go on endlessly.
8 hrs
|
|
Merci, Peter ! That certainly seems to me to correspond better to the correct meaning of the source text.
|
Discussion
The plural 'rights' in EN is often used as a sort of 'collective singular'; think of it as meaning the singular 'entitlement'; there is no specific implication that there are multiple different rights involved. This is clearly what must have been going through the writer's mind when they then used a singular verb 'remains'.
The intended meaning is abundantly clear, the only doubt is really which of the two 's's is the extraneous one!
Do note also that, contrary to FR practice, when each party has a right, we speak of the parties' 'rights' — this could be enough reason to explain the 'spurious' plural here.