18:42 Aug 24, 2011 

Thanks. Glad if I was able to help. I do have the impression that "deal" implies some sort of transaction here, yes. I thought the case I cited might be useful, not least because it shows that there can be legal argument about precisely what sort of actions "deal with" can cover in this context.

13:36 Aug 24, 2011 

Charles, thank you very much for making this point (Amarpaul, thank you too!) I don't have a lawyer to consult, but my gut (for whatever it's worth :)) tells me that you have it right

04:54 Aug 24, 2011 

Could "deal" be akin to "transact"?

If so, it could be reworded: "We undertake and agree not to carry out any transaction in respect of the Interest save as the Owner ... etc."

Also, a reference I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-dealing

10:46 Aug 23, 2011 

It seems to me that "deal with" has a technical meaning here. That meaning seems to be essentially "alienate", but I think it would be highly advisable to consult a lawyer . The following document, on an Australian case, GPT RE LTD v Lend Lease Real Estate Investments LTD [2005] NSWSC 964, New South Wales Supreme Court, White J, 27 September 2005, addresses this very point:

"(i) The meaning of "deal with"

White J first dealt with the issue of whether GPT had "dealt with" part of its "Interest" under the Joint Ownership Agreement by entering into the Deed. White J found that it was only transactions which amounted to an alienation of the whole or part of an owner's interest which would fall within the definition of "deal with". [...]"
The rest of the discussion is well worth reading.
http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/bulletins/LAWLEX Corporate L...

08:33 Aug 23, 2011 

It's not a question of 'trouble', Giordano, but we can't begin to help you unless you give us the kind of information we need to do so properly, as you just have.

I have to say I find it quite surprising to encounter a rather informal term like 'deal with' in such a legal document — though it makes me wonder if the term perhaps has some more formal meaning in this specific context that I as a non-expert in this field am simply unaware of.

If not, and it really does have its informal, everyday meaning, then yes, I rather do think it is dangerously ambiguous.

08:19 Aug 23, 2011 

No, Tony. This is a document prepared by UK lawyers and I'm trying to translate it. I don't understand this bit about "not to deal with... save as". If it sounds ambiguous even to you, I'll try to reflect it in my translation. If it's still too much trouble, sorry and forget it.

08:08 Aug 23, 2011 

The EN term is sufficiently ambiguous, what is the purpose of this exercise?

If this is your proposed translation into EN from some other language, then please post in that language forum, and be sure to give the source term.

Any other way of going about this is fraught with the risk of mistranslation.

Is this part of your course work? If so, there is a box you are supposed to check to indicate this to potential contributors.