This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
spot trades inversés
faiblesse du temps scolaire
This question was closed without grading. Reason: No acceptable answer
Nov 13, 2017 00:29
6 yrs ago
2 viewers *
French term

s’est vu opposer par [la banque] l’incompétence

French to English Law/Patents Law (general)
Ok, so the British courts did not have jurisdiction in the end and so the case was sent to the court of first instance and this person had to pay attorney's fees in the UK to no avail. However, I'm having trouble wording this portion starting with "s'est vu opposer par...." I'm guessing the word order needs to be changed around a bit.


Context:

En outre, Madame XXXXXX s’est vu opposer par la [BANK NAME] l’incompétence des juridictions anglaises, ce qui a généré pour elle des frais de représentation en Grande Bretagne importants, en vain.

Elle également, pour prouver le bien fondé de ses affirmations, été contrainte d’avoir recours au Cabinet d’expertise XXXXXX, ce qui a généré un coût de GBP 525.497,50, soit près de € 600.000,00 (pièce n° XX) dont le montant devra être intégralement remboursé par la défenderesse.
Proposed translations (English)
3 +4 the bank objected that the English jurisdictions were incompetent
Change log

Nov 13, 2017 16:15: Yolanda Broad changed "Term asked" from "s’est vu opposer par la banque l’incompétence" to "s’est vu opposer par [la banque] l’incompétence"

Discussion

Thomas T. Frost Nov 13, 2017:
The bank did not defend Mrs X's claim The bank objected to whatever Mrs X claimed; it did not defend (agree with) Mrs X.

Perhaps you wanted to say that the bank defended itself against Mrs X's claim, but when you defend something, you agree with it.
ph-b (X) Nov 13, 2017:
or... '[BANK] defended the claim brought by Mrs X, arguing that English courts had no jurisdiction'?
Thomas T. Frost Nov 13, 2017:
? If the bank defended Mrs X's claim, they agreed with it. But the text says they objected to it. Furthermore we don't know what Mrs X has claimed, but it doesn't look as if she claimed that English courts had no jurisdiction – quite the opposite.

I think you have misunderstood the role of the direct object to "defend".
ph-b (X) Nov 13, 2017:
? '[BANK] defended Mrs X’s claim arguing that English courts had no jurisdiction.' Would that work?

Proposed translations

+4
10 hrs
French term (edited): s’est vu opposer par la banque l’incompétence des juridictions anglaises

the bank objected that the English jurisdictions were incompetent

You could also say "… that English courts did not have jurisdiction".

"Madame X" doesn't go into the sentence construction in English, so if it's not already clear from the context, it should be mentioned separately.

Of course, before we get to "ce qui a généré pour elle des frais de représentation en Grande Bretagne importants, en vain," a court would have needed to agree with the matter of jurisdiction.

The following sentence lacks logic, as it makes it look as if it were enough for the bank to object to the jurisdiction, without making it clear that it is because a court agreed with that objection that the objection took effect, but that’s not a translation problem.
Peer comment(s):
agree Zofia Wislocka : ofc :-)
3 hrs
Thanks.
agree philgoddard
3 hrs
Thanks.
neutral AllegroTrans : ..the English courts did not have jurisdiction
11 hrs
agree Michele Fauble
11 hrs
Thanks.
agree B D Finch : I think it should be "were not competent", rather than "were incompetent".//"Incompetent" applied to a jurisdiction is a bit undiplomatic/insulting. Applied to a patient, there's no problem.
1 day 4 hrs
Thanks. "…did not have jurisdiction" is probably better.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search