KudoZ home » French to English » Law: Contract(s)

n'est pas source d'inefficacité comme suspecte de n'être pas sufisamment entrée

English translation: is not a cause of inefficiency because it may be suspected...

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.
09:03 Aug 26, 2008
French to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s)
French term or phrase: n'est pas source d'inefficacité comme suspecte de n'être pas sufisamment entrée
Talking of external arbitration clauses, their use and validity:

S'agissant plus spécialement de la référence opérée par le document contractuel principal à des documents annexes, on notera qu'elle n'est pas par elle-même source d'inefficacité comme suspecte de n'être pas sufisamment entrée dans le champ contractuel, et ce même en matière de protection des consommateurs contre les clauses abusives.

Its mainly the grammatical construction that is bothering me here, since I don't understand the use of the word "comme" in this construction.

Thanks
Wendy Cummings
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:07
English translation:is not a cause of inefficiency because it may be suspected...
Explanation:
IMO "comme" introduces the reason why it may be inefficient.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 32 minutes (2008-08-26 09:35:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

the trick is to what the "not" applies when you have two elements after. I read "not (inefficient because of)" and not "(not inefficient) because of".
it is not inefficient and the reason why it may have been deemed inefficient is the fact that it may be suspected not to be enough in the scope of the contract.
So that it is not inefficient because it is in the scope of the contract...
Selected response from:

BusterK
Local time: 22:07
Grading comment
In the end, i expanded the phrase more than thise, in order to remove the ambiguity, but it was thanks to Buster's explanations that i could do so.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
3 +1(cannot be considered as) a cause of inefficiency on the grounds that it could be suspected not ...Aude Sylvain
3 +1is not a cause of inefficiency because it may be suspected...BusterK


  

Answers


11 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
is not a cause of inefficiency because it may be suspected...


Explanation:
IMO "comme" introduces the reason why it may be inefficient.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 32 minutes (2008-08-26 09:35:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

the trick is to what the "not" applies when you have two elements after. I read "not (inefficient because of)" and not "(not inefficient) because of".
it is not inefficient and the reason why it may have been deemed inefficient is the fact that it may be suspected not to be enough in the scope of the contract.
So that it is not inefficient because it is in the scope of the contract...

BusterK
Local time: 22:07
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 62
Grading comment
In the end, i expanded the phrase more than thise, in order to remove the ambiguity, but it was thanks to Buster's explanations that i could do so.
Notes to answerer
Asker: if you use "because" in that manner, I read it as "it is not ineffient, and the reason why it is not inefficient is...". Your explanation however implies "it is not inefficient because it may NOT be suspected..." Is that right?


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Aude Sylvain: agree with Wendy's note indeed: 'not inefficient because it may NOT be suspected...' Is this what you meant BusterK? / d'accord avec votre prop ds ce cas... mais en y ajoutant le "not" mentionné par Wendy ds sa note pour éviter confusion à mon avis.
5 hrs
  -> mon abjectif était d'éclaircir l'original. comme je l'ai ajouté par la suite, c'est une question de paranthèse et le not doit effectivement nier l'ensemble (inefficace parce que suspecte), ce qui revient au même que pas inefficace parce que pas suspecte.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

5 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
(cannot be considered as) a cause of inefficiency on the grounds that it could be suspected not ...


Explanation:
d'autres possibilités,

'cannot be considered as a cause of inefficiency on the grounds that it could be suspected not to be enough in the scope of the contract,...'
ou
'is not a cause of inefficiency since it cannot be suspected...'

'comme' ici = 'en qualité de', 'en tant que', 'au motif que'...

cf. dict. Littré :
comme
(...)
3. En qualité de. On le cite comme le plus savant helléniste. Regarder la chose comme faite.
Elle [l'âme] comprend qu'elle ne doit plus penser ici-bas qu'à adorer Dieu comme créateur, lui rendre grâce comme redevable, lui satisfaire comme coupable, le prier comme indigente. [Pascal, Conv. du pécheur.]
http://littre.reverso.net/dictionnaire-francais/definition/c...


La référence aux doc annexes serait inefficace *si* on pouvait la suspecter de n'être pas suffisament entrée ds le champ contractuel. Mais on ne peut pas le suspecter, donc la référence est bien efficace.
Motif de l'ineff. serait le fait que l'on puisse la suspecter d'être partiellement en-dehors du champ contractuel.

It cannot be suspected to be partly out of the contractual scope, hence it is fully efficient = it is very clear that those annex docs are part of the contract, then referring to them in the main doc is fully effective (has all due legal effects/consequences).

Aude Sylvain
France
Local time: 22:07
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 58

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  BusterK: je ne suis pas sûr que vous leviez l'ambiguïté: est-ce que "on the grounds" explicite le fait qu'elle ne puisse pas être considérée comme inefficace ou celui qu'elle aurait put l'être... La solution utilisant since est de ce point de vue plus claire.
2 hrs
  -> Merci ;) - oui, vs avez raison 'since' est sûrement plus clair. Ou moins ambigu !
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