KudoZ home » French to English » Business/Commerce (general)

franchise maximum à la charge du

English translation: the maximum amount the cardholder is liable for

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.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
French term or phrase: franchise maximum à la charge du
English translation:the maximum amount the cardholder is liable for
Entered by: LaraBarnett
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

11:00 Apr 7, 2018
French to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Business/Commerce (general) / franchise maximum à la charge du
French term or phrase: franchise maximum à la charge du
This is a small note at the top of the statement describing changes about to take place on customer bank cards.

"Ces évolutions portent notamment sur la franchise maximum à la charge du titulaire de la carte..."

I have tried : "maximum allowance(deductible?) borne by the card holder..." ? but obviously this is not worded correctly and I do not know how to formulate this properly.
LaraBarnett
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:46
the maximum amount the cardholder is liable for
Explanation:
This seems to concern the cardholder protection in Article 61 of the Payment Services Directive, 2007/64/EC (see the links in EN and FR below).

“Article 61

Payer's liability for unauthorised payment transactions

1. By way of derogation from Article 60 the payer shall bear the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment instrument or, if the payer has failed to keep the personalised security features safe, from the misappropriation of a payment instrument.

2. The payer shall bear all the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions if he incurred them by acting fraudulently or by failing to fulfil one or more of his obligations under Article 56 with intent or gross negligence. In such cases, the maximum amount referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply.

3. In cases where the payer has neither acted fraudulently nor with intent failed to fulfil his obligations under Article 56, Member States may reduce the liability referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the personalised security features of the payment instrument and the circumstances under which it was lost, stolen or misappropriated.

4. The payer shall not bear any financial consequences resulting from use of the lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument after notification in accordance with Article 56(1)(b), except where he has acted fraudulently.

5. If the payment service provider does not provide appropriate means for the notification at all times of a lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument, as required under Article 57(1)(c), the payer shall not be liable for the financial consequences resulting from use of that payment instrument, except where he has acted fraudulently.”

In French:

« Article 61

Responsabilité du payeur en cas d'opérations de paiement non autorisées

1. Par dérogation à l'article 60, le payeur supporte, jusqu'à concurrence de 150 EUR, les pertes liées à toute opération de paiement non autorisée consécutive à l'utilisation d'un instrument de paiement perdu ou volé ou, si le payeur n'est pas parvenu à préserver la sécurité de ses dispositifs de sécurité personnalisés, au détournement d'un instrument de paiement.

2. Le payeur supporte toutes les pertes occasionnées par des opérations de paiement non autorisées si ces pertes résultent d'un agissement frauduleux de sa part ou du fait que le payeur n'a pas satisfait, intentionnellement ou à la suite d'une négligence grave, à une ou plusieurs des obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de l'article 56. Dans ce cas, le montant maximal visé au paragraphe 1 du présent article ne s'applique pas.

3. Lorsque le payeur n'a pas agi de manière frauduleuse ni n'a manqué intentionnellement aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de l'article 56, les États membres peuvent limiter la responsabilité visée aux paragraphes 1 et 2 du présent article, en tenant compte notamment de la nature des dispositifs de sécurité personnalisés de l'instrument de paiement et des circonstances dans lesquelles celui-ci a été perdu, volé ou détourné.

4. Sauf agissement frauduleux de sa part, le payeur ne supporte aucune conséquence financière résultant de l'utilisation d'un instrument de paiement perdu, volé ou détourné, survenue après la notification prévue à l'article 56, paragraphe 1, point b).

5. Si le prestataire de services de paiement ne fournit pas de moyens appropriés permettant, à tout moment, la notification de la perte, du vol ou du détournement d'un instrument de paiement, conformément à l'article 57, paragraphe 1, point c), le payeur n'est pas tenu, sauf agissement frauduleux de sa part, de supporter les conséquences financières résultant de l'utilisation de cet instrument de paiement. »

The word “franchise” is not used in the Directive, because we're not talking about insurance, but limitation of the cardholder's liability. So translating “franchise” to the American “deductible” or British “excess” doesn't work.
Selected response from:

Thomas T. Frost
Grading comment
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +6the maximum amount the cardholder is liable for
Thomas T. Frost


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


23 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +6
la franchise maximum à la charge du titulaire de la carte
the maximum amount the cardholder is liable for


Explanation:
This seems to concern the cardholder protection in Article 61 of the Payment Services Directive, 2007/64/EC (see the links in EN and FR below).

“Article 61

Payer's liability for unauthorised payment transactions

1. By way of derogation from Article 60 the payer shall bear the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment instrument or, if the payer has failed to keep the personalised security features safe, from the misappropriation of a payment instrument.

2. The payer shall bear all the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions if he incurred them by acting fraudulently or by failing to fulfil one or more of his obligations under Article 56 with intent or gross negligence. In such cases, the maximum amount referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply.

3. In cases where the payer has neither acted fraudulently nor with intent failed to fulfil his obligations under Article 56, Member States may reduce the liability referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the personalised security features of the payment instrument and the circumstances under which it was lost, stolen or misappropriated.

4. The payer shall not bear any financial consequences resulting from use of the lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument after notification in accordance with Article 56(1)(b), except where he has acted fraudulently.

5. If the payment service provider does not provide appropriate means for the notification at all times of a lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument, as required under Article 57(1)(c), the payer shall not be liable for the financial consequences resulting from use of that payment instrument, except where he has acted fraudulently.”

In French:

« Article 61

Responsabilité du payeur en cas d'opérations de paiement non autorisées

1. Par dérogation à l'article 60, le payeur supporte, jusqu'à concurrence de 150 EUR, les pertes liées à toute opération de paiement non autorisée consécutive à l'utilisation d'un instrument de paiement perdu ou volé ou, si le payeur n'est pas parvenu à préserver la sécurité de ses dispositifs de sécurité personnalisés, au détournement d'un instrument de paiement.

2. Le payeur supporte toutes les pertes occasionnées par des opérations de paiement non autorisées si ces pertes résultent d'un agissement frauduleux de sa part ou du fait que le payeur n'a pas satisfait, intentionnellement ou à la suite d'une négligence grave, à une ou plusieurs des obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de l'article 56. Dans ce cas, le montant maximal visé au paragraphe 1 du présent article ne s'applique pas.

3. Lorsque le payeur n'a pas agi de manière frauduleuse ni n'a manqué intentionnellement aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de l'article 56, les États membres peuvent limiter la responsabilité visée aux paragraphes 1 et 2 du présent article, en tenant compte notamment de la nature des dispositifs de sécurité personnalisés de l'instrument de paiement et des circonstances dans lesquelles celui-ci a été perdu, volé ou détourné.

4. Sauf agissement frauduleux de sa part, le payeur ne supporte aucune conséquence financière résultant de l'utilisation d'un instrument de paiement perdu, volé ou détourné, survenue après la notification prévue à l'article 56, paragraphe 1, point b).

5. Si le prestataire de services de paiement ne fournit pas de moyens appropriés permettant, à tout moment, la notification de la perte, du vol ou du détournement d'un instrument de paiement, conformément à l'article 57, paragraphe 1, point c), le payeur n'est pas tenu, sauf agissement frauduleux de sa part, de supporter les conséquences financières résultant de l'utilisation de cet instrument de paiement. »

The word “franchise” is not used in the Directive, because we're not talking about insurance, but limitation of the cardholder's liability. So translating “franchise” to the American “deductible” or British “excess” doesn't work.


    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007L0064&from=EN
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007L0064&from=EN
Thomas T. Frost
Meets criteria
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in DanishDanish, Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 16
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you.


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Rob Grayson: Yes, but given that it's a formal text, reword as "maximum amount for which the cardholder is liable"
38 mins
  -> Thanks. If they use a legally incorrect term like "franchise", I doubt how "formal" this is. It looks like casual bank client information, so the main thing is that the client easily understands it (and that it's correct).

agree  AllegroTrans
1 hr
  -> Thanks

agree  Tony M: I agree with Rob, 'for which...' is grammatically more correct and stylistically better.
2 hrs
  -> Thanks. Trailing prepositions is just one of those questions people have conflicting views on – or should I say "on which people have conflicting views"? – just like split infinitives.

agree  Victoria Britten: I would also go for "for which": your version isn't wrong but gives the reader slightly more work
5 hrs
  -> Thanks

agree  writeaway: so this can be found by looking on line? and agree with others about for which. Remember the great English grammar rule (Danish too?): a preposition is something you should never end a sentence with / sigh
6 hrs
  -> Such "rules" don't really serve any useful purpose, and they are disputed. Apparently this one was imported from Latin, but English syntax doesn't have Latin roots. Let me quote Churchill: "nonsense up with which I will not put". :-)

agree  Daryo
19 hrs
  -> Thanks
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