Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
|English to English translations [Non-PRO]|
Law/Patents - Law (general)
|English term or phrase: each of the parties (in this case)|
I am currently translating general supply conditions and I'm not sure what to make of the following sentence:
The Agreement may not be modified except by a written amendment signed by persons having the power to represent *each of the parties*.
I know of course what the sentence means but I am unsure that "each of the parties" was used correctly in this sentence. If the parties decide to modify the Agreement made between them, they need to draw up an amendment which then must be signed by persons who have the power to represent *each of the parties*. I don't understand how this can be. If I am the representative of party A, I certainly don't need to have the power to represent party B as well, in order to execute and deliver the amendment on behalf of party A. But in my opinion that's what *each of the parties* would mean ("power to represent EACH of the parties"). Am I completely wrong or is this part of the Agreement ambiguous?
I understand "each of" should probably mean "jeweilig", i.e. "applicable" in this context --> "having the power to represent *the applicable party*"
I have a hunch my text is a translation from French into English, because "each of" is used all over the place in contexts where I would expect "applicable", "respective" etc.
I'd like to know if this use of "each of" makes any sense to you and if this is correct English usage that I just haven't come across so far (even though I translate exclusively legal texts).
Any input by native speakers is very welcome. Let the discussion begin!
Thanks to all in advance!
|English translation:I'm afraid you are completely wrong in your assumption|
Although there are certainly other ways that it might have been expressed in EN, it doesn't read at all wrongly to my native ears, nor does it read like a too-literal translation from (say) FR — I can't speak for other languages.
I think to start with you are misinterpreting 'amendment' — it does not refer here to a *proposed* change, but to the actual change that has been areed by both parties, and that is implemented.
It seems to me patently obvious that any such amendment put into force must be definition need to be signed by an authorized representative of each party (i.e. one representative for each party), and I cannot see how you could possibly harbour even the slightest confusion about this point?
I would presume they have chosen to use 'each' instead of 'both' to cater for the eventualtiy that there be more than just 2 parties involved.
There is no way the 'each' could be interpreted as implying that the same person would be representing two or more parties at the saem time.
Selected response from:
Local time: 16:37
|Thank you very much!|
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
7 mins confidence:
pls see my comment below
For me it is quite clear:
1. The amendment is only valid if signed by BOTH parties (= Companies)
2. Individuals signing the amendment on behalf of the parties need to have the authorisation of the RELEVANT party (i.e. being a Director, a proxy, having power of attorney etc.)
Local time: 16:37
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Polish
PRO pts in category: 4
|Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)|9 mins confidence:
you are right...
They each have the power to represent one party, and they both have to agree.
Note added at 12 mins (2007-06-26 20:28:53 GMT)
Or, if there are more parties, they ALL have to agree to the amendment.
Local time: 16:37
Native speaker of: Dutch
|Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)|