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

que no dependan de su sola y exclusiva voluntad

English translation: which are not under its (sole and) exclusive control

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.
01:36 Aug 12, 2006
Spanish to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / Real Estate
Spanish term or phrase: que no dependan de su sola y exclusiva voluntad
A real estate contract from Spain for a new condominium project. The sentence reads as follows: "En caso de incumplimiento del presente contrato, por causas imputables a la parte vendedora, *que no dependan de su sola y exclusiva voluntad*, el mismo quedaría resuelto automáticamente y de pleno derecho..." I'm having trouble with that phrase. Can someone help me?
kifriedman
United States
Local time: 20:02
English translation:which are not under its (sole and) exclusive control
Explanation:
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "The thing speaks for itself". The doctrine is applied to claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. It is most useful to plaintiffs in negligence cases.

Under the old common law rule, to use res ipsa loquitur in the context of negligence the plaintiff must prove that:

1. The harm would not ordinarily have occurred without someone's negligence
2. The instrumentality of the harm was **under the exclusive control** of the defendant at the time of the likely negligent act
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the harm by his own negligence.

The "exclusive control" element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation, where the plaintiff must prove that other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. As a consequence, the third element, that the plaintiff did not contribute to his injury, is subsumed by the new formulation. In addition, it is important to note that contributory negligence is, in modern case law, reckoned in "comparison" to the injury caused by the other. For example, if the negligence of the other is 95% the cause of the plaintiff's injury, and the plaintiff is 5% responsible, the plaintiff's slight fault will not negate the negligence of the other.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2006-08-12 03:27:47 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

If a condominium project is concerned, probably the selling party is not a single individual but some sort of company or group, thus "its" is the appropriate possessive pronoun.
Selected response from:

Refugio
Local time: 17:02
Grading comment
Thank you so much for the assistance, and thanks to all who responded!
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4 +3which do not depend on its sole and exclusive will,
Michael Powers (PhD)
4 +3which are not under its (sole and) exclusive controlRefugio
4which causes may be beyond the seller's sole and exclusive control / responsibilityLidia D


  

Answers


34 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
which do not depend on its sole and exclusive will,


Explanation:
Mike :)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 35 mins (2006-08-12 02:11:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I believe it would make sense stated like this.

Michael Powers (PhD)
United States
Local time: 20:02
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 977

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Cinnamon Nolan: his or her sole ...
28 mins

agree  monicavidal: I don't think "it" should be used to refer to party
45 mins

agree  Jack Doughty: I don't normally comment on Spanish-English questions, but that is exactly how I mentally translated it when I saw the question before opening it.
1 hr
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
which are not under its (sole and) exclusive control


Explanation:
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "The thing speaks for itself". The doctrine is applied to claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. It is most useful to plaintiffs in negligence cases.

Under the old common law rule, to use res ipsa loquitur in the context of negligence the plaintiff must prove that:

1. The harm would not ordinarily have occurred without someone's negligence
2. The instrumentality of the harm was **under the exclusive control** of the defendant at the time of the likely negligent act
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the harm by his own negligence.

The "exclusive control" element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation, where the plaintiff must prove that other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. As a consequence, the third element, that the plaintiff did not contribute to his injury, is subsumed by the new formulation. In addition, it is important to note that contributory negligence is, in modern case law, reckoned in "comparison" to the injury caused by the other. For example, if the negligence of the other is 95% the cause of the plaintiff's injury, and the plaintiff is 5% responsible, the plaintiff's slight fault will not negate the negligence of the other.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2006-08-12 03:27:47 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

If a condominium project is concerned, probably the selling party is not a single individual but some sort of company or group, thus "its" is the appropriate possessive pronoun.

Refugio
Local time: 17:02
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 74
Grading comment
Thank you so much for the assistance, and thanks to all who responded!

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Henry Hinds: Quite good.
1 hr
  -> Thanks, Henry

agree  translatol
7 hrs
  -> Thanks, translatol

agree  xxxcmwilliams
8 hrs
  -> Thanks, CMW
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

23 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
which causes may be beyond the seller's sole and exclusive control / responsibility


Explanation:
Eg use of "beyond"
...I think he's incapable of admitting that things were being done in his country that were beyond his control. --> que no estaban bajo su control / que escapaban a su control
...rooted finally in an initial set of genetic and circumstantial variables beyond the reach of her powers... ---> que no estén al alcance de sus facultades ...

Lidia D
Argentina
Local time: 21:02
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in category: 12
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