par defaut de cause

English translation: [terminating a contract] for being / becoming without a purpose / void of purpose

15:52 Nov 29, 2019
French to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / Online gambling / horse r
French term or phrase: par defaut de cause
Par ailleurs, dans le cas où XXX perdrait son agrement d'operateur de paris hippiques en ligne ou que cet agrement n'etait pas renouvele, le present Contrat serait immediatement resilie par defaut de cause, sans indemnite pour XXX.
Verity Roat
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:07
English translation:[terminating a contract] for being / becoming without a purpose / void of purpose
Explanation:
the closest I could find for "la cause du contract" is "the purpose of the contract" (which would be more a translation for "le but du contrat", but the basic idea is the same "the motivation / the reasons for entering into the given contract"

FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE
December 27, 2014 by: Content Team

Frustration of purpose pertains to the law of contracts, and takes place when unexpected circumstances undermine the purpose of the contract. In order for the principle of frustration of purpose to apply, both parties must have been aware of the primary purpose for the contract to begin with. To explore this concept, consider the following frustration of purpose definition.

Noun

A defense used for failing to fulfill duties outlined in a contract when something occurs that hinders or obstructs the reason or purpose of the contract.

Impossibility, Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose
A person who has an obligation under a contract may potentially be relieved of the obligation for certain legally valid reasons. When breaching or extricating oneself from a contract, the party must prove either (1) impossibility, (2) impracticability, or (3) frustration of purpose.

While a contract may specifically state these reasons for terminating a contract, it is more often not stated but understood. When a party to the contract terminates or “breaches” the contract for one of these reasons, the other party may have no legal grounds to file a civil lawsuit seeking damages.

Impossibility
Impossibility means that some specific duty under the contract has become impossible to fulfill under any reasonable circumstances. For example, John pays Bob $5,000 to paint his house in January, but the house burns down in December before the payment is made. This excuses John from the contract legally since it is no longer possible for the house to be painted. Bob has no recourse to seek damages in a legal lawsuit because this issue falls under the doctrine of impossibility.
:
Another example of impossibility might be if Bob, who owns several apple orchards, enters into a contract with a company promising to provide them with two-thousand bushels of apples each year. The contract specifies that all of the apples will be Granny Smith apples from his northern fields. Due to a very harsh winter, the Granny Smith apple crop was destroyed. Because of the effects of an unexpectedly harsh weather, Bob is no longer obligated to provide the company with the apples, as circumstances beyond his control made delivery impossible.

Impracticability
Impracticability excuses a party from a specific duty outlined in a contract when that duty has become unreasonably difficult or too expensive to perform. The courts use certain conditions when considering impracticability, including:

An occurrence of an unforeseen circumstance or condition
The unforeseen condition must render the duty unreasonably difficult or expensive to perform
The extreme expense or difficulty could not have been anticipated by either party to the contract
For example, John’s company signs a contract with the city to remove all of the gravel in a specific area. After surveying the area, the company quickly learns that a large portion of the gravel is underwater and removing it will cost the company 20 times more than was originally agreed to. The company could claim impracticability since the cost to remove the gravel underwater will be far too great.

Frustration of Purpose
Frustration of Purpose exists if the reason for, rather than a duty of, a contract becomes nullified due to no fault of either party. Unlike impossibility and impracticability, both of which involve duties, frustration of purpose, or “frustration of contract,” specifically involves the reason for the contract.

For example, Louise leases a storefront shop from Bob in order to sell exotic snakes to the public. The lease term is set for five years. After two years into the business venture, laws are passed making it illegal to sell exotic snakes within the United States. Louise might then be excused from the final three years of the lease, as Bob knew the specific purpose of the lease was to sell exotic snakes. With the ban on the snakes, Louise no longer has a reason to continue with the lease unless she desires to do so. On the other hand, Bob may also be able to end the contract and lease the property to another business.

That would apply to this ST: if the operator loses its betting licence, the contract for renting a betting shop (or anything else strictly linked to betting) becomes "without a purpose"

Other Common Grounds for Terminating a Contract
In addition to impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose, other legal grounds for terminating a contract might include:

-- Fraud – a deceptive or fraudulent contract is not legal and will not be upheld in the court.
-- Mistake – if a mistake is made within the contract, it may be dismissed.
-- Misrepresentation – like fraudulent contracts, agreements cannot be based on misrepresentation. For instance, one party cannot fail to state all terms within the contract.
-- Breach of Contract – in the event one party breaches his duties under a contract, the other party may be able to terminate the contract altogether.

Related Legal Terms and Issues
-- Agent – a person who acts on behalf of another person or an entity.
-- Agency – a business or organization that has been established to provide goods or services.
-- Civil Lawsuit – a court action in which one party sues another for a civil wrong, such as breach of contract.
-- Discharge – to relieve of a burden or responsibility, as in a contract.
-- Fraud – an act undertaken for the purpose of intentionally deceiving another person or entity for personal gain.
Objective – a goal, or something that a person’s actions and efforts are intended to accomplish.



compare with

https://blogavocat.fr/space/albert.caston/content/caducité-d...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 5 hrs (2019-11-30 21:36:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

https://legaldictionary.net/frustration-of-purpose/
Selected response from:

Daryo
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:07
Grading comment
3 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +3(terminated) for frustration (of purpose)
AllegroTrans
4 +1(post-contractual) for failure of substratum; (pre-contract) for lack of consideration
Adrian MM.
4[terminating a contract] for being / becoming without a purpose / void of purpose
Daryo
3no longer has a valid purpose
SafeTex
Summary of reference entries provided
This may help
AllegroTrans

  

Answers


6 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
par défaut de cause
(post-contractual) for failure of substratum; (pre-contract) for lack of consideration


Explanation:
- including accents will hep a past or future KudoZ search.

Las cause is derived from the Latin causa and means quid pro quo or consideration, often misconstrued in the SPA of un negocio causado and the DEU of Kausalgeschäft > a transaction backed by good or valuable consideration (cf. ProZ entries).

La cause: '... is always the undertaking given by the other party i.e. the existence of consideration; legal basis; legal ground; consideration; cause; proceedings; case (Bridge).'

A City of London Notary to me 40 years ago: 'la cause is v. difficult to translate but often boils down to the idea of contract consideration. Otherwise, it might be legit. to leave in the Latin of causa' : cue - objections from the anti-Latin brigade who have never studied law.

No doubt other posters can and will improved on the kernel or substrate of my answer.




    Reference: http://www.viberts.com/articles/commercial-disappointment-fa...
Adrian MM.
United Kingdom
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 28

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  GILOU
1 day 7 hrs
  -> Merci encore une fois and thanks de novo.

neutral  Daryo: "the anti-Latin brigade who have never studied law" well said!
4 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

18 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
no longer has a valid purpose


Explanation:
I think that if the X loses his status as operator, the contract with Y is immediately annulled as it no longer has a valid purpose (or no valid reason to exist any longer)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2019-11-30 10:19:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

or "no longer serves a valid purpose" is probably even better

SafeTex
France
Local time: 10:07
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 44

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Daryo: that's the idea, but that's not what the way you would put it in a contract. // "stupid Latin" turned out to be the ONLY workable solution for names of plants and animals in EU legislation, one example of "stupid" (according to YOU, that is) not being it.
5 hrs
  -> As long as we don't use some stupid Legalese formula in Latin, I'm happy with any alternatives.

neutral  writeaway: this may be online betting but even so, it's not a great idea to introduce terms like valid or invalid into a legal context unless they are actually there
7 hrs
  -> As long as we don't use some stupid Legalase formula in Latin, I'm happy with any alternatives

neutral  AllegroTrans: Vaguely correct, but source text is a legal doc and a legal term is needed here
16 hrs
  -> Frustration of purpose if fine but my answer was not "vaguely" correct. You have a given a similar answer meaning the same thing so "vaguely" is unjustified here.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day 5 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
[résiliation d'un contrat] pour défaut de cause
[terminating a contract] for being / becoming without a purpose / void of purpose


Explanation:
the closest I could find for "la cause du contract" is "the purpose of the contract" (which would be more a translation for "le but du contrat", but the basic idea is the same "the motivation / the reasons for entering into the given contract"

FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE
December 27, 2014 by: Content Team

Frustration of purpose pertains to the law of contracts, and takes place when unexpected circumstances undermine the purpose of the contract. In order for the principle of frustration of purpose to apply, both parties must have been aware of the primary purpose for the contract to begin with. To explore this concept, consider the following frustration of purpose definition.

Noun

A defense used for failing to fulfill duties outlined in a contract when something occurs that hinders or obstructs the reason or purpose of the contract.

Impossibility, Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose
A person who has an obligation under a contract may potentially be relieved of the obligation for certain legally valid reasons. When breaching or extricating oneself from a contract, the party must prove either (1) impossibility, (2) impracticability, or (3) frustration of purpose.

While a contract may specifically state these reasons for terminating a contract, it is more often not stated but understood. When a party to the contract terminates or “breaches” the contract for one of these reasons, the other party may have no legal grounds to file a civil lawsuit seeking damages.

Impossibility
Impossibility means that some specific duty under the contract has become impossible to fulfill under any reasonable circumstances. For example, John pays Bob $5,000 to paint his house in January, but the house burns down in December before the payment is made. This excuses John from the contract legally since it is no longer possible for the house to be painted. Bob has no recourse to seek damages in a legal lawsuit because this issue falls under the doctrine of impossibility.
:
Another example of impossibility might be if Bob, who owns several apple orchards, enters into a contract with a company promising to provide them with two-thousand bushels of apples each year. The contract specifies that all of the apples will be Granny Smith apples from his northern fields. Due to a very harsh winter, the Granny Smith apple crop was destroyed. Because of the effects of an unexpectedly harsh weather, Bob is no longer obligated to provide the company with the apples, as circumstances beyond his control made delivery impossible.

Impracticability
Impracticability excuses a party from a specific duty outlined in a contract when that duty has become unreasonably difficult or too expensive to perform. The courts use certain conditions when considering impracticability, including:

An occurrence of an unforeseen circumstance or condition
The unforeseen condition must render the duty unreasonably difficult or expensive to perform
The extreme expense or difficulty could not have been anticipated by either party to the contract
For example, John’s company signs a contract with the city to remove all of the gravel in a specific area. After surveying the area, the company quickly learns that a large portion of the gravel is underwater and removing it will cost the company 20 times more than was originally agreed to. The company could claim impracticability since the cost to remove the gravel underwater will be far too great.

Frustration of Purpose
Frustration of Purpose exists if the reason for, rather than a duty of, a contract becomes nullified due to no fault of either party. Unlike impossibility and impracticability, both of which involve duties, frustration of purpose, or “frustration of contract,” specifically involves the reason for the contract.

For example, Louise leases a storefront shop from Bob in order to sell exotic snakes to the public. The lease term is set for five years. After two years into the business venture, laws are passed making it illegal to sell exotic snakes within the United States. Louise might then be excused from the final three years of the lease, as Bob knew the specific purpose of the lease was to sell exotic snakes. With the ban on the snakes, Louise no longer has a reason to continue with the lease unless she desires to do so. On the other hand, Bob may also be able to end the contract and lease the property to another business.

That would apply to this ST: if the operator loses its betting licence, the contract for renting a betting shop (or anything else strictly linked to betting) becomes "without a purpose"

Other Common Grounds for Terminating a Contract
In addition to impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose, other legal grounds for terminating a contract might include:

-- Fraud – a deceptive or fraudulent contract is not legal and will not be upheld in the court.
-- Mistake – if a mistake is made within the contract, it may be dismissed.
-- Misrepresentation – like fraudulent contracts, agreements cannot be based on misrepresentation. For instance, one party cannot fail to state all terms within the contract.
-- Breach of Contract – in the event one party breaches his duties under a contract, the other party may be able to terminate the contract altogether.

Related Legal Terms and Issues
-- Agent – a person who acts on behalf of another person or an entity.
-- Agency – a business or organization that has been established to provide goods or services.
-- Civil Lawsuit – a court action in which one party sues another for a civil wrong, such as breach of contract.
-- Discharge – to relieve of a burden or responsibility, as in a contract.
-- Fraud – an act undertaken for the purpose of intentionally deceiving another person or entity for personal gain.
Objective – a goal, or something that a person’s actions and efforts are intended to accomplish.



compare with

https://blogavocat.fr/space/albert.caston/content/caducité-d...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 5 hrs (2019-11-30 21:36:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

https://legaldictionary.net/frustration-of-purpose/

Daryo
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:07
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in SerbianSerbian, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 97

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  AllegroTrans: Vaguely correct, but source text is a legal doc and a legal term is needed here; unfortunately you skipped staright past the most suitable term
5 hrs
  -> I did check; "contract void of purpose" is a legal term and that's what the emphasis is in ".... sans cause" - the "frustration" of the contract is the consequence...
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day 11 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
(terminated) for frustration (of purpose)


Explanation:
Contracts can be terminated due to an unforeseen event
One of the instances in which the contract can be terminated due to frustration is when the nature of the contract has changed between the parties because of an unforeseen event, and which also happens to be outside the control of the contracting parties.
How contracts can be terminated due to frustration
https://www.findlaw.com.au › articles › how-contracts-can-be-terminated-du...
Feedback

How can a contract be discharged by frustration?
A contract may be discharged by frustration. A contract may be frustrated where there exists a change in circumstances, after the contract was made, which is not the fault of either of the parties, which renders the contract either impossible to perform or deprives the contract of its commercial purpose.
Frustrated contracts - E-lawresources
www.e-lawresources.co.uk › Frustrated-contracts

by Leigh Ellis Updated: 24 June 2019

The law takes legally binding contracts seriously.

It's difficult to get out of contracts and escape liability for performance, even when something happens that makes it harder, more expensive or onerous to perform.

Whether a contract has been frustrated or not can mean the difference between:

a claim for a serious breach of contract, or
relief from performance of the contract.


What is Frustration of Contract?

Frustration of contract is the general law's method of allowing parties to be relieved of their legal obligations.

It only applies to contracts which have become impossible to perform.

A supervening event changes the circumstances of performance of the contract so significantly, that the parties no longer need to perform the contract.

The supervening event terminates the contract.


Consequences of Frustration

Frustration brings a contract to an end immediately and automatically: Maritime National Fish Ltd. v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd[1935] UKPC 20. It's one of the methods of termination.

It’s the supervening event that causes impossibility of performance that causes that legal effect. It’s a method of discharge of a contract.

If the supervening event does not frustrate the contract, the party required to perform (and hasn't) is in breach of contract.

That breach of contract will be a repudiatory breach of contract.

That’s because the contract probably has not been performed in accordance with its terms, because the frustrating event prevented it.
https://hallellis.co.uk/blog/frustration-legal-contracts/


AllegroTrans
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:07
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 462

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Daryo: the whole of "frustration of purpose"
3 hrs
  -> thanks

agree  writeaway: safe way to go, imo. And is clearly understandable, which isn't really a bad thing
10 hrs
  -> thanks

agree  B D Finch: One good thing about KudoZ is that you can see the answers that weren't chosen. So, even if the Asker chooses badly, it's still useful to others researching a term years later.
1 day 7 hrs
  -> thanks but asker has now chosen a non-lawyerly pseudo translation
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Reference comments


5 hrs peer agreement (net): +2
Reference: This may help

Reference information:
A défaut de signifie "dans le cas d'un manque de, en cas d'absence de, faute de, au lieu de, sinon".
Exemple : A défaut de lait, elle se servit d'un peu d'eau, mais, sorti du four, le gâteau n'avait pas du tout la même saveur.
Synonyme : faute
Traduction anglais : for lack of, for want of



La notion de cause (cause objective / cause subjective – cause de l’obligation / cause du contrat)

par Aurélien Bamdé 6 mai 2017 contenu du contrat

À la différence de l’ancien article 1108 du Code civil, l’article 1128 ne vise plus la cause comme condition de validité du contrat.

Aussi, cela suggère-t-il que cette condition aurait été abandonnée par le législateur. Toutefois, là encore, une analyse approfondie des dispositions nouvelles révèle le contraire.

Si la cause disparaît formellement de la liste des conditions de validité du contrat, elle réapparaît sous le vocable de contenu et de but du contrat, de sorte que les exigences posées par l’ordonnance du 10 février 2016 sont sensiblement les mêmes que celles édictées initialement.

Il ressort, en effet, de la combinaison des nouveaux articles 1162 et 1169 du Code civil que pour être valide le contrat doit :

ne pas « déroger à l’ordre public […] par son but»
prévoir « au moment de sa formation la contrepartie convenue au profit de celui qui s’engage» laquelle contrepartie ne doit pas être « illusoire ou dérisoire »

La cause n’a donc pas tout à fait disparu du Code civil. Le législateur s’y réfère sous des termes différents : le but et la contrepartie.

==> La notion de cause

L’ancien article 1108 du Code civil subordonnait donc la validité du contrat à l’existence d’« une cause licite dans l’obligation ».

L’article 1131 précisait que « l’obligation sans cause, ou sur une fausse cause, ou sur une cause illicite, ne peut avoir aucun effet. »

Ainsi, ressort-il de ces articles que pour que le contrat soit valable, cela supposait qu’il comporte une cause conforme aux exigences légales : non seulement la cause devait exister, mais encore elle devait être licite.

Encore fallait-il, néanmoins, que l’on s’entende sur la notion de cause : à quoi correspondait cette fameuse « cause » qui a désormais disparu du Code civil, à tout le moins dans son appellation ?

==> La cause finale

Tout d’abord, il peut être observé que la cause anciennement visée par le Code civil n’était autre que la cause finale, soit le but visé par celui qui s’engage, par opposition à la cause efficiente.

La cause efficiente
La cause efficiente est entendue comme celle qui possède en soi la force nécessaire pour produire un effet réel
Il s’agit autrement dit, de la cause génératrice, soit de celle qui est à l’origine d’un événement.
Cette conception de la cause se retrouve en droit de la responsabilité, où l’on subordonne le droit à réparation de la victime à l’établissement d’un lien de causalité entre la faute et le dommage
On parle alors de cause du dommage ou de fait dommageable

La cause finale
La cause finale est le but que les parties poursuivent en contractant, soit la raison pour laquelle elles s’engagent.
Ainsi, le vendeur d’un bien vend pour obtenir le paiement d’un prix et l’acheteur paie afin d’obtenir la délivrance de la chose
Ces deux raisons pour lesquelles le vendeur et l’acheteur s’engagent (le paiement du prix et la délivrance de la chose) constituent ce que l’on appelle la cause de l’obligation, que l’on oppose classiquement à la cause du contrat

==> Cause de l’obligation / Cause du contrat

Initialement, les rédacteurs du Code civil avaient une conception pour le moins étroite de la notion de cause.

Cette dernière n’était, en effet, entendue que comme la contrepartie de l’obligation de celui qui s’engage.

Aussi, dans un premier temps, ils ne souhaitaient pas que l’on puisse contrôler la validité de la cause en considération des mobiles qui ont animé les contractants, ces mobiles devant leur rester propres, sans possibilité pour le juge d’en apprécier la moralité.

Aussi, afin de contrôler l’exigence de cause formulée aux anciens articles 1131 et 1133 du Code civil, la jurisprudence ne prenait en compte que les raisons immédiates qui avaient conduit les parties à contracter, soit ce que l’on appelle la cause de l’obligation, par opposition à la cause du contrat :

La cause de l’obligation
Elle représente pour les contractants les motifs les plus proches qui ont animé les parties au contrat, soit plus exactement la contrepartie pour laquelle ils se sont engagés
La cause de l’obligation est également de qualifiée de cause objective, en ce sens qu’elle est la même pour chaque type de contrat.
Exemples :
Dans le contrat de vente, le vendeur s’engage pour obtenir le paiement du prix et l’acheteur pour la délivrance de la chose
Dans le contrat de bail, le bailleur s’engage pour obtenir le paiement du loyer et le preneur pour la jouissance de la chose louée

La cause du contrat
Elle représente les mobiles plus lointains qui ont déterminé l’une ou l’autre partie à contracter
La cause du contrat est également qualifiée de cause subjective, dans la mesure où elle varie d’un contrat à l’autre
Exemples :
Les raisons qui conduisent un vendeur à céder sa maison ne sont pas nécessairement les mêmes que son prédécesseur
Les raisons qui animent un chasseur à acquérir un fusil ne sont pas les mêmes que les motifs d’une personne qui envisagent de commettre un meurtre

La Cour de cassation a parfaitement mis en exergue cette distinction entre la cause de l’obligation et la cause du contrat, notamment dans un arrêt du 12 juillet 1989.

Dans cette décision elle y affirme que « si la cause de l’obligation de l’acheteur réside bien dans le transfert de propriété et dans la livraison de la chose vendue, en revanche la cause du contrat de vente consiste dans le mobile déterminant, c’est-à-dire celui en l’absence duquel l’acquéreur ne se serait pas engagé » (Cass. 1ère civ. 12 juill. 1989)

Schéma 1.JPG

AllegroTrans
United Kingdom
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 462

Peer comments on this reference comment (and responses from the reference poster)
agree  writeaway: Jawohl. So isses.
2 hrs
agree  Daryo: good refs!
23 hrs
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