Daryo Aug 5, 2012:

administration, surveillance or guarding ... is always going to be needed.
Unless they plan to build a brand new warehouse (in which case "build-up" is to be understood as just "build" – i.e. "build a storage facility ...", it doesn't change much.
It’s not impossible, but that would be a very long term, and quite sizeable contract, to justify a purpose-built warehouse. Hopefully it should be clear from the rest of the text if it’s the case or not.

Tony M Aug 5, 2012:

Right! That vital extra context does rather change things, Asker!

legiscriba (asker) Aug 5, 2012:

it is provided that the Parties shall build up a storage comprising of replacement and spare parts. It is agreed that xxxx shall be in charge of the administration of this storage, including its surveillance or guarding

Tony M Aug 4, 2012:

'Comprising of' As F-X so rightly points out, 'comprising of' is also a tell-tale sign of sub-standard EN. However, this is a common-enough error even by EN native speakers, so on its own wouldn't be enough to indicate a non-native writer. However, the incorrect use of 'storage' as a countable is a very typical error made by foreigners. In fact, in FR, 'rangement' can be countable too, though presumbaly that is just co-incidental — unless like me the other day you are translating into EN a FR document originally written in EN by native FR speakers!! Go figure!

Tony M Aug 4, 2012:

'Storage' as a countable? I think there is something flawed with this EN, as 'storage' is normally uncountable, so we can't say 'a storage' — it would need to be just 'store' without the indefinite article, or else 'storage' is an adjective describing something that is missing, like, say, 'a storage facility'.

Don't forget, you can't "build up a storage" — but you can 'build up a stock'.

However, IMHO, either of those options would tend to place the emphasis too much on the space providing the storage, or the fact of storing; here, I feel, what is important is to keep the focus on what it is that is being stored. In the context of this contract, they don't really care exactly how these items are stored — all that matters is the fact that they are stored.

So I feel there is an error in the EN source text, and we ought to interpret it as if the word had been 'store' (the confusion with the more abstract 'storage' is very common among non-native speakers) — or perhaps even 'stock', to emphasize still further the real purpose of this whole clause.