English translation: were apparent (at the time of sale) to the purchaser
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.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
French term or phrase:
dont l\'acheteur a pu se convaincre lui-même
English translation:
were apparent (at the time of sale) to the purchaser
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) / Warranties
French term or phrase:dont l'acheteur a pu se convaincre lui-même
"Enfin, nous ne sommes pas tenus des vices apparents dont l'acheteur a pu se convaincre lui-même"
This is at the end of the warranty statement for a watch. I believe they are saying that the sellers are not responsible for any visible defects that the buyer could have observe for themselves at the time of purchase, but I haven't been able to find any resources that support this.
Thanks to AllegroTrans for this option (and everyone who participated on the discussion). Although there were several choices, I went with a version of this. 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
Your point is valid, the source is interesting and convincing. Although it is not an original language document and I do not want to sound difficult and bloody-minded, whilst we might disagree about the right/wrong of altering the orignal tense, the text posted by the asker is a paraphrase of the legal text. The asker will be able to decide what best fits his context and how much freedom there is. Perhaps it is not that important after all?!
Art. 1642 A seller is not liable for defects which are patent and which the buyer could ascertain for himself. http://195.83.177.9/upl/pdf/code_22.pdf
[Paid membership lapsed]
It is quite common for what is a standard phrase in one language to have no satndard phrase in another language, even in ordinary situations where one might expect that to be the case.
Thanks to everyone for participating in the detailed discussion on this. I found many, many examples of the French phrase on the Internet for warranties or contracts. What I was unable to find were any resources to justify my choice of wording in English.
I agree, at a certain point it becomes futile to continue the discussion, but I didn't think we'd reached that point yet, since I wasn't clear on why my translation seemed to be too loosey-goosey. In any event, I will leave it at that and not provide my side of the discussion on the question of why "could have" is appropriate even though it's not the literal translation. :)
Your interpretation is clear. The meaning of "could have" is clear. However we don't agree on whether it is a suitable solution here.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree as it looks like we are not going to see eye to eye on this one. The Asker has a couple of interpretations available and can chose. Voilà!
I’m not sure what’s left to chance by using “could have.” The interpretation is clear. The conditional “could have” works here because the source clause itself establishes conditions that have to be met–(1) the buyer not discovering (2) an otherwise discoverable defect – before the stated result– the seller is releived from the terms of the warranty–is triggered. If there’s another way that "could have" could be interpreted in this context, I’d be interested in knowing what that is.
a pu : was able, dixit the original.
'could have' introduces the idea of possibility, which, at a pinch, may be read into this. Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, stricto sensu, a tighter, more accurate rendering of the original rules out 'could have'. 'Could convince himself...' would be acceptable in terms of perception of time, but does not sound natural. 'Could have' does sound more natural, but in my view take the time zone 1 and a half steps away from the French.
'a pu' moves closer to a defect having been noted by the purchaser, rather than it having been just a possibility.
Indeed, it may quite accurately be rendered by a common or garden simple past : 'noted'.
The whole idea is a little knotted with the idea of 'se convaincre' here...
Simple past : noted, or a passive form which means playing around with 'be'.
I'm not quite sure what the problem is using "could have" in this context. It fits perfectly to indicate something that the actor could have done but didn't do. Native speakers won't have a problem reading this. It's run-of-the-mill third conditional, the unreal past.
Also, “could have” is more forceful in that it unconsciously implies that the buyer “should have” been more careful in inspecting the goods in order to discover any defects. It kind of mildly accuses the buyer of being careless. Again, all under the surface. Assuming it’s the seller that wrote up the guarantee -- it virtually always is -- this would be the intended effect.
I would comment your answer but am not a paying member of ProZ so cannot do so. If I were able to comment, I'd mark : "neutral" as there is, to my mind, an important distinction to be made. The original is distinguishing two points of view, not an observation of what may be a matter of fact. It opposes the purchaser's conception of what may be a defect (one which he has convinced himself exists and can be qualified as such), with what the manufacturer is willing to accept as a defect (ne pas être tenus de).
The sense of this sentence is that the manufacturer has no obligation to accept what the purfchaser may consider as such. This is where the "se convaincre" comes in. The purchaser is not being said to have 'discovered' a defect. It is saying that the fact that purchaser may believe that something is a defect, does not necessairly mean that it is in fact a defect, particularly from the manufacturer's point of view.
On the contrary, this is standard law - caveat emptor - sold as seen etc.
See:
Latent defect - Ask Jeeves Encyclopedia
However, when the defect could have been discovered by the buyer by a thorough inspection (a "patent defect"), the buyer cannot possibly succeed in a claim against the ...
uk.ask.com/wiki/Latent_defect - Cached
Do you think "noticed" (or even "recognized") would be better than discover?: apparent being visible/obvious - as opposed to vice caché.
This is a standard legal phrase - and is certainly so in English too.
The translation workplace 
peer agreement (net): +3
