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.
14:37 Aug 3, 2006
This question was closed without grading. Reason: No acceptable answer
German to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters / Land register extract
German term or phrase:wäre
3. Nach Mitteilung der Stadt G sind im Baulastenverzeichnis die in der Anlage B 3 aufgeführten Baulasten zu Lasten des Grundbesitzes verzeichnet. Dem Verkäufer 1 ist nicht bekannt, dass diese Mitteilung unrichtig wäre.
HERE IS MY QUESTION:
Is the seller saying it has no knowledge that the notice COULD BE wrong, or that it IS wrong?
No liability IMHO. "I believe this information is right, I have no reason to suspect that it is not right, and if it is not right, that is nothing to do with me." Seller is washing his hands of any responsibility for a mistake by the authorities.
was whether Seller 1 was assuming any liability for the mere possiblity of the notice being wrong, i.e. if the clause says the Seller has no cause to believe that the notice MAY BE wrong, or alternatively only that the Seller has no cause to believe that it IS wrong. For instance, if there is an unresolved aspect which is not clearly wrong, is the seller liable? The discussion kind of got sidetracked onto the difference between WAS and IS, but that's understandable. I couldn't pick between Kieran and Victor-Brigitte. I used "Seller 3 has no cause to believe that the notice is incorrect." Broadest liability possible.
OK, Derek, my "games" was flippant (perhaps it needed a smiley), so sorry about that. But I still support Brigitte's original suggestion (or my clumsier alternative). Or perhaps "has not reason to suspect that it could be wrong". It's not reported speech.
Brigitte's note (above) is best. Or perhaps "The seller has no knowledge to indicate that this information is wrong". Playing with verb equivalents (was/is) merely plays language games without meaning anything.
In my humble opinion, the possibility of an alternative reality is already contained in the phrase "is not aware" (= "ist nicht bekannt"). And yes, it is very typical in documents such as these to use "reported speech" (again, IMHO). :-)
does not seem to belong in this context. This is a contract. The Seller has read the notice, which said XYZ. So the seller writes into the contract, I read the notice and it looks fine. The Seller is not reporting what it was told. Is reported speech used in German in this situation anyway merely as a convention? It's clear to a native speaker that it means IS not COULD BE?