GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
11:41 Jun 23, 2013 |
German to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / General Terms and Conditions | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Kirsten Bodart United Kingdom Local time: 21:55 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 | ... |
| ||
4 | insofar as [party] is not strictly liable for... under the present contract/agreement |
| ||
3 | ..properties of foreseeable losses [which are]inherent to this contract and thus mandatorily covered |
|
Summary of reference entries provided | |||
---|---|---|---|
Strict liability |
|
Discussion entries: 2 | |
---|---|
..properties of foreseeable losses [which are]inherent to this contract and thus mandatorily covered Explanation: If I break it down, the sentence reads like this: Die Haftungsbeschränkungen gelten nicht soweit - bei Schäden an privat genutzten Sachen nach dem Produkthaftungsgesetz, oder - in Fällen... ... des Vorsatzes oder ... grobeR Fahrlässigkeit (grammar!) oder ... der Verletzung wesentlicher Vertragspflichten oder ... des Fehlens zugesicherter Eigenschaften für vertragstypische vorhersehbare Schäden This bit "zwingend gehaftet wird" reads like the remnant of an incomplete 'copy and paste/delete' act. However, if you change it to something like what follows, it might make more sense: "Die Haftungsbeschränkungen gelten nicht soweit [...] in Fällen [...] des Fehlens zugesicherter Eigenschaften für vertragstypische vorhersehbare Schäden, für die (bereits) zwingend gehaftet wird." --> in the sense that another agreement or clause is in place that covers all and any foreseeable damage/losses. Does this help you at all? |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
... Explanation: Kirsten is right; it's just a comma that is missing to make sense. By adding the comma before soweit, the remainder of the sentence states what shall not be covered by the limitations to liability. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
insofar as [party] is not strictly liable for... under the present contract/agreement Explanation: I would turn the sentence active and include the party whom this clause applies to. It reads better than the passive and is clearer because you've got the essence of the sentence in the beginning. I think Kim's suggestion of 'strict liability' is not a bad one, provided you include the contract/agreement you are dealing with. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 23 hrs (2013-06-24 10:42:38 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- No 'under the present contract/agreement' should be there. I was too hasty there. The party here would be strictly liable for damage to objects used for private purposes under/in acc. with the Product Liability Act or in all those other cases. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
13 hrs |
Reference: Strict liability Reference information: I'm not sure if "strict liability" is a reasonable equivalent of "zwingend haften," but it has been used by others here. Strict liability http://www.proz.com/kudoz/german_to_english/law_patents/2506... http://www.proz.com/kudoz/german_to_english/law_patents/2479... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability |
| |
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.