KudoZ home » English » Other

Is it correct?

English translation: Not legally enforceable

Advertisement

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.
08:51 Jan 16, 2004
English to English translations [PRO]
English term or phrase: Is it correct?
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission
may contain confidential or legally privileged
information that is intended only for the
individual or entity named in the email address.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or reliance upon the contents of
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail transmission in error,
please reply to the sender, so that we can
arrange for proper delivery, and then please
delete the message from your inbox. Thank you.
Malgorzata Kozarzewska
Local time: 17:09
English translation:Not legally enforceable
Explanation:
Otherwise it's OK. :)

(You sent an email in error to me? It's mine.)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-01-16 09:15:52 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In case I wasn\'t perfectly clear: Yes, it is linguistically correct!
I only had a problem with the meaning. Which (the meaning, that is) is normally a factor in translation. ;)
Selected response from:

Ildiko Santana
United States
Local time: 08:09
Grading comment
VIELEN DANK ALLEN! ICH MUSS LEIDER NUR EINE ANTWORT WÄHLEN
:(
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
5 +3Not legally enforceable
Ildiko Santana
5 +1Grammatically, yes;David Moore
5An example
nothing
4...use of the contentsLaurel Porter
3ambiguitynyamuk


  

Answers


3 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +3
Not legally enforceable


Explanation:
Otherwise it's OK. :)

(You sent an email in error to me? It's mine.)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-01-16 09:15:52 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In case I wasn\'t perfectly clear: Yes, it is linguistically correct!
I only had a problem with the meaning. Which (the meaning, that is) is normally a factor in translation. ;)

Ildiko Santana
United States
Local time: 08:09
Native speaker of: Native in HungarianHungarian, Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 162
Grading comment
VIELEN DANK ALLEN! ICH MUSS LEIDER NUR EINE ANTWORT WÄHLEN
:(

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  David Moore: I rather think this would be covered by copyright law
1 min

agree  Chris Rowson: Yes, it´s linguistically correct :-)
2 mins
  -> Thanks Chris. You can at least read. :)

agree  Tony M: Yes, this is more or less word-for-word the same as the kinds of messages I receive every day; though as everyone has pointed out, it has questionable legal weight! What exactly was Asker wanting to know?
23 mins
  -> She wanted to know if her translation was linguistically correct. :)

agree  xxxCMJ_Trans: it makes perfect sense at all levels - what legal weight it carries is another issue
38 mins

agree  Charlie Bavington: linguistically - no problem, sounds like standard stuff (as Dusty said). I'm assuming the Asker would go elsewhere for legal advice !! :-)
1 hr
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

7 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +1
is it correct?
Grammatically, yes;


Explanation:
I have no particular objections as an ENS - but is this what you wanted to know?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 mins (2004-01-16 09:01:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Additionally, I think the mere fact of misdirection would not invalidate copyright law, whereby the content of the e-mail would be the \"intellectual property\" of the sender.


David Moore
Local time: 17:09
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 864

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Hazel Whiteley: Surely what's at stake here is confidentiality, not copyright.
16 mins
  -> Yes, but isn't it the copyright law which would protect that here?

neutral  Ildiko Santana: Who said anything about copyright? Sheesh...
18 mins
  -> YOU did - by implication....
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
is it correct?
ambiguity


Explanation:
ambiguity

e-mail doesn't go to the wrong address but it has been addressed wrong.

By this notice a recipient who is not the intended recipient may still be the named recipient. With this notice you have given a non intended recipient who is named in the e-mail, albeit in error, special recognition. Best just to put a copyright notice.


...information that is intended only for the
individual or entity named in the email address.

...If you have
received this e-mail transmission in error.




--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 24 mins (2004-01-16 10:16:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As has already been pointed out the legal validity of the notice is questionable. Its one thing to enforce a copyright notice, its another to enforce non-disclosure to individuals not party to an NDA.

nyamuk
United States
Local time: 09:09
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 58
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

5 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
An example


Explanation:
It doesn't cover the whole content of your question, but it could be useful to compare. It was in an email I received: "This Email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of the email is strictly prohibited"

nothing
Local time: 16:09
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 44
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

6 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
...use of the contents


Explanation:
I did have a problem with the following phrase:

"...or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail".

I think "use of" would be better here - "reliance on" s.t. usually just means that you *trust* in its accuracy or usefulness, possibly basing decisions on it, etc. That would be an awfully hard thing to ban.

Laurel Porter
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 36
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search