it

English translation: the Grantor

16:16 May 3, 2018
English to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general) / Immobilier
English term or phrase: it
THE GRANTOR, DOES HEREBY COVENANT with the Grantee, except as above-noted, that, at the time of the delivery of this Deed, the premises were free from all encumbrances made by it, and that it will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming, by, through, or under it, but against none other.

Selon vous, à quoi se réfère l'article "it" dans ce passage ? The grantor?
A♠T
France
Local time: 07:04
English translation:the Grantor
Explanation:
Yes, there is nothing else it could possibly refer back to, and 'made by it' and 'it will warrant' are entirely consistent with 'the grantor'; however, that THIRD 'it' refers (I would think) rather to the Covenant: "...claiming, by, through, or under it..."


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2018-05-03 21:09:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

My reasoning is as follows:

The only other possible preceding nouns are 'premises', 'encumbrances' (both plural) or 'Covenant', which doesn't really fit with what 'it' has or has not been up to.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 days (2018-05-17 06:10:18 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

In fact, 'covenant' here being a verb, I firmly believe the 3rd instance of 'it' refers in fact to 'this Deed' (which amounts to the same thing, i.e. 'that which is being covenanted').

I have in this to disagree with Daryo's analysis; in his last point, he seems to be suggesting (erroneously, IMHO) that the Grantor will "protect" the Grantee from claims arising out of it (= the Deed) against (i.e. with respect to...) certain 3rd parties "but against none other." [i.e. "none other [encumbrance] than those made by the Grantor] — I do not believe the subject of 'against' can change like this, and my own interpretation would be that:

"THE GRANTOR, DOES HEREBY COVENANT with the Grantee, ..., that, at the time of the delivery of this Deed, the premises were free from all encumbrances made by it [=the Grantor], and that it [=the Grantor] will warrant and defend the same [= the Grantee] against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming, by, through, or under it [= this Deed], but against none other [claim]."

To me, that is the onlmy way it can make legal sense: the Grantor will "protect" the Grantee from claims arising out of any restrictions on the premises laid down in the agreement made between them, but will not "protect" them against claims that are not directly related to what is in this Deed
.
Selected response from:

Tony M
France
Local time: 07:04
Grading comment
Selected automatically based on peer agreement.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +4the Grantor
Tony M
4 +1the Grantor, the Grantor, encumbrances [only those made by the Grantor]
Daryo


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


21 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
... it ... it ... it ...
the Grantor, the Grantor, encumbrances [only those made by the Grantor]


Explanation:
THE GRANTOR, DOES HEREBY COVENANT with the Grantee, except as above-noted, that, at the time of the delivery of this Deed, the premises were free from all encumbrances made by it [=the Grantor], and that it [=the Grantor], will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming, by, through, or under it [claims by third parties based on any of these "encumbrances" made by the Grantor], but against none other. [but not "other encumbrances" i.e. made by someone else than the Grantor]

the ONLY grounds third parties [to this Covenant] could have for making any claims could be based only on some previous contracts (with the Grantor or its predecessors), contracts that constitute an "encumbrance" as far the property is concerned.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs (2018-05-04 14:38:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------


Third parties to this Covenant (that is between the Grantor and the Grantee) have no cause of action for making any claims against the Grantee based on this Covenant (this Covenant is none of their business), so anyone coming out of the woodwork and claiming any kind of rights on the property could only do so based on some other previous contract that created an "encumbrance" on the property. (basics of law?).



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 days (2018-05-13 09:16:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

cross checking:

the Grantor can be held responsible (and excepted to clear the mess) for claims made by third parties based on encumbrances that the Grantor itself put on the property, but not if third party claims are based on encumbrances were created by some previous owners, as in:

.... "but against none other." [i.e. "none other [encumbrance] than those made by the Grantor]


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 days (2018-05-13 09:17:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

on encumbrances that were created by

Daryo
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:04
Native speaker of: Native in SerbianSerbian, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Tony M: Yes, but 'encumbrances' can't really be 'it' (= singular), it would need to be 'them' (= plural)
25 mins
  -> I know that grammatically it sounds awkward, but I can't see anything else that could make real life sense./ Any third-party claim would be based only on one "encumbrance" (the one concerning that party) maybe it explains the singular.

agree  GILOU
6 days
  -> Thanks!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +4
the Grantor


Explanation:
Yes, there is nothing else it could possibly refer back to, and 'made by it' and 'it will warrant' are entirely consistent with 'the grantor'; however, that THIRD 'it' refers (I would think) rather to the Covenant: "...claiming, by, through, or under it..."


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2018-05-03 21:09:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

My reasoning is as follows:

The only other possible preceding nouns are 'premises', 'encumbrances' (both plural) or 'Covenant', which doesn't really fit with what 'it' has or has not been up to.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 days (2018-05-17 06:10:18 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

In fact, 'covenant' here being a verb, I firmly believe the 3rd instance of 'it' refers in fact to 'this Deed' (which amounts to the same thing, i.e. 'that which is being covenanted').

I have in this to disagree with Daryo's analysis; in his last point, he seems to be suggesting (erroneously, IMHO) that the Grantor will "protect" the Grantee from claims arising out of it (= the Deed) against (i.e. with respect to...) certain 3rd parties "but against none other." [i.e. "none other [encumbrance] than those made by the Grantor] — I do not believe the subject of 'against' can change like this, and my own interpretation would be that:

"THE GRANTOR, DOES HEREBY COVENANT with the Grantee, ..., that, at the time of the delivery of this Deed, the premises were free from all encumbrances made by it [=the Grantor], and that it [=the Grantor] will warrant and defend the same [= the Grantee] against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming, by, through, or under it [= this Deed], but against none other [claim]."

To me, that is the onlmy way it can make legal sense: the Grantor will "protect" the Grantee from claims arising out of any restrictions on the premises laid down in the agreement made between them, but will not "protect" them against claims that are not directly related to what is in this Deed
.


Tony M
France
Local time: 07:04
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 84
Grading comment
Selected automatically based on peer agreement.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  philgoddard: I don't think we can be totally sure, but this seems a reasonable guess. It's a truly awful piece of writing.
24 mins
  -> Thanks, Phil!

agree  Tina Vonhof
2 hrs
  -> Thanks, Tina!

agree  Manuel Cedeño Berrueta
2 hrs
  -> ¡Gracias Manuel!

agree  AllegroTrans
3 hrs
  -> Thanks, C!

disagree  Daryo: yes for the first two it=the Grantor, but the third "it" CAN NOT be this Covenant - as potential claimants are not party to it, but some of the existing "encumbrances" could give to third parties to this Covenant legal grounds for making claims.
20 hrs
  -> That's why I was at pains to say I was sure about the first 2, but that the third one was less clear; I don't see how anyone can make a claim 'under or through' the Grantor, though they might with 'Covenant'. Claimants don't NEED to be a party to it.

agree  Mahsa Riyahi
9 days
  -> Thanks, Mahsa!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



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.

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:

Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search