will be due, as well as all actually incurred costs in relation thereof

22:23 Feb 17, 2009 

Thanks for the additional info, Gary. I still don't quite get it, but I hope Mark will - or that he is at least better prepared to get help re-writing the specific text.

21:53 Feb 17, 2009 

Items recovered in lou of payment by liquidation to cover damages incurred through the forfeit of the host. These items will not be regarded as a penalty, (only valued at liquidated value) and all other monies are still due to be paid. (Ie; will be pursued through legal means if necessary, and further penalties may apply)
Meaning; Products seized, can not be regarded as a penalty or the sole form of recovered payment for default.
At shows, some organizations leave their products there when they can't pay the fees, in the hope the recovered money from these items will cover their fees. Exhibitions are trying to get rid of these organizations.

13:37 Feb 17, 2009 

you comments are very helpful. Thanks.

12:26 Feb 17, 2009 

I'm changing my reaction from "disagree" with Gary D to "Neutral". The reason I still don't agree is that "normal" ways of expressing things can be dangerous.
</br></br>
As long as you are only dealing with people within a field (such as exhibitors at "automechanica") - and most of them are experienced - and probably even know each other! - well, mud is as good as anything - in fact, the more recognizable, the better.
</br></br>
The problem is that our world is getting more and more "dynamic". Maybe Mark Chen's client can still live with mud - then I agree that he should just leave the text alone. But for people who are not part of the particular business culture the text would be clear as mud, so it would be a good idea to clean things up.
</br></br>
The reviewing "subject matter expert" would, ideally, also be an expert in how the mud usually looks - yet be open to helping newbies to understand what they're getting themselves into! :o)

12:05 Feb 17, 2009 

I'm fine with "Should this Agreement not be completed by reason of the default of the Host, any amount paid shall thereupon be forfeited to become the property of and be retained by ***
as liquidated damages " - although I imagine it could be made clearer.
</br></br>
But the second part leaves me in grave doubt - no wonder Mark Chen asked for help to re-write it!
</br></br>
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be written without further exploration. If I were working on this I would try to make an analysis and present it to the "subject matter expert" to see if I got it right before attempting to complete the editing and/or translation.
</br></br>
Here is one possible analysis.
</br></br>
[Start a new sentence?]
</br></br>
- "The Host is liable for ** the following items:"
</br></br>
"1) the Flat Fee referred to as in Article 7.11" [do they really mean "as in" - i.e. that it is also referred to elsewhere? If the Flat Fee is only mentioned in Article 7.11, it should probably be "referred to in A..."]
</br></br>
"2) All Exhibition transportation costs (round trip), provided that the transport has been initiated."
</br></br>
"3) All costs actually incurred by ** in relation thereto" [not thereof]...[ - But what is meant by thereto? Are we talking "all activities undertaken to complete [fulfill?] the Agreement"? Or just costs related to the Exhibition? Or just costs related to transporting the exhibition? What about costs incurred as a consequence of stopping collaboration before "the entire Agreement" has been "completed"?]
</br></br>

"The above are the costs which must be covered" [So - if those three things must be covered in "any event", it is possible that "Additional items may apply" ? - If nothing else applies, why is it important to say "in any event": could there be events other than "not completing the Agreement" ?]

Payment of these costs to ** is not to be considered as a penalty. [Considered by whom? Are we talking about a penalty with reference to legislation? Or with reference to the Agreement itself? Or both? Could a penalty be added to the Host's bill]