Today I have received an email from a translatin company. Part of the procedures, the company asked me to sign its contract. After reading the contract, I noticed and found out that the contract has a provision and term that gives the right for the client to reject the translation work if it has poor quality.
>> These are standard contract terms sent by many agencies. After all, let's be fair, they also have to protect themself from translations of poor quality.
I think this is not binding and not good because the company may say the translation is not good and therefore does not pay. OR, the company is not paid by the clietn and consequently does not pay the translator. OR client escapes payment by saying that the translation is of poor quality.
>> Once you sign it, it is binding. What seems to be missing here if the procedure used to confirm that the poor quality of a translation (e.g. by an independent third party). As to whether the agency is paid or not by client, you will find numerous post on this matter. IMHO, your client is the agency and whether they are paid or not by their client is not your problem.
I think the translator must pay in advance for the company.
I think the company must do a test for the translator.
Once the test is passed then the company reject claims that the translation work is poor.
>> I have not yet seen any agency paying translators in advance (and between us, they would be crazy if they did).
>> I agree that the agency should first test the translator (although as discussed in a number of posts previously, this is not a guarantee for the quality of the translation job delivered by the translator).
What do you think?
>> I think that I would ask them to include their quality assurance procedures.
Would you allow a client to evaluate your work?
>> Of course I would, after all they are paying for job. The point is how they evaluate your work and whether this method and reasonable and acceptable to you.