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.
|French to English translations [PRO]|
|French term or phrase: ne saurait être engagée|
|La responsabilité de la Societe xxxx|
ou de toute personne ne saurait être engagée suite à un quelconque dommage direct ou indirect
|special construction meaning "cannot"|
NE SAURAIT :
"saurait" is the third person conditional of the modal "savoir" and when used with "ne" alone, it has a special meaning. Rather than having anything to do with its usual meaning of "know", its meaning in this form is "to be able". Therefore, "la responsabilité de ... ne saurait être engagée" means "cannot be held liable for...".
Source : A Comprehensive French Grammar, L.S.R. Byrne & E.L. Churchill, revised/rewritten by Glanville Price, 4th edition, Blackwell's. (ISBN : 0-631-18164-4)
" In medieval French, "ne" was frequently used on its own... to negate a verb. There are relics of this in modern French, falling into three categories, viz.:
- fixed expressions and proverbs
- constrcutions in which "ne" is a literary alternative to "ne...pas"
- cosntructions in which "ne" is superfluous (and where English has no negative at all)."
Your example is cited in the second category :
A few constructions that can vary slightly in respect of their subject and/or tense and/or complement, and mainly involving one or other of the verbs 'avoir' and 'être'.
Translate as "damage" or "loss", never as "damages" as to an English audience, this means compensation, what the French refer to as "dommages & intérêts".
Suggested translation :
Neither Company XXX nor any other person shall* be held liable** in the event of any direct or consequential*** loss****.
* "shall" just sounds more natural than "can" (It is pretty impossible to exclude liability in tort (negligence) anyway and if the liability here is contractual, then it may still be considered unreasonable or even unfair.
** "liable" to be preferred to "responsible". English law refers to liability rather than responsibility in such cases.
*** "consequential" is the more liekly term here, although "indirect" cannot be excluded
**** It is more common to refer to "loss" than "damage", even though the original has not used "perte" - although again it depends on context.
Selected response from:
Local time: 15:34
|What more could I say but Thank you.|
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
51 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): -1 1 hr confidence: 1 hr confidence: peer agreement (net): +3