Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
se prevaloir d'un manquement
English translation:
act upon a breach
Added to glossary by
Simon Mountifield
Dec 15, 2004 12:19
19 yrs ago
22 viewers *
French term
Hassle-free translations for busy people
Native in: English 
Works in: French to English
se prevaloir
French to English
Bus/Financial
Law: Contract(s)
general contract terms
Context is an IT outsourcing contract. The following phrase appears near the start, in the general stuff, before it gets down to the details:
"Le fait, pour l’une des parties, de ne pas se prévaloir d’un manquement à l’une quelconque des obligations ne saurait être interprété dans l’avenir comme une renonciation à l’obligation en cause"
For which I have currently:
"If one or other of the parties does not invoke [the penalties for] non-performance of a particular contractual obligation, this shall not be interpreted as the party relinquishing their rights to performance of that obligation in future"
I'd like confirmation or correction primarily of my assumption that se prevaloir de here means invoke *penalties*, since the French doesn't actually refer to penalties here, although various penalties are stipulated in several of the detailed clauses later.
Thanks awfully!
"Le fait, pour l’une des parties, de ne pas se prévaloir d’un manquement à l’une quelconque des obligations ne saurait être interprété dans l’avenir comme une renonciation à l’obligation en cause"
For which I have currently:
"If one or other of the parties does not invoke [the penalties for] non-performance of a particular contractual obligation, this shall not be interpreted as the party relinquishing their rights to performance of that obligation in future"
I'd like confirmation or correction primarily of my assumption that se prevaloir de here means invoke *penalties*, since the French doesn't actually refer to penalties here, although various penalties are stipulated in several of the detailed clauses later.
Thanks awfully!
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
7 hrs
Selected
act upon
...is perhaps one possibility that remains as non-specific as the French.
My understanding of the phrase is the same as CMJ's - i.e. if party A doesn't take advantage of party B's failure to honour one of its commitments (therefore missing out on possible compensation, etc.), it doesn't mean that party B will be able to default again (on that particular commitment) in the future and automatically get off scott free, just because no action was taken last time... I hope you see what I mean!
One possible rendering might be:
Failure by either party (or one of the parties) to act upon a breach (or violation) of any one of the obligations shall not be interpreted (or construed) as...
I suppose another way would be - failure by either party to take action following a breach of any one...
Good luck!
My understanding of the phrase is the same as CMJ's - i.e. if party A doesn't take advantage of party B's failure to honour one of its commitments (therefore missing out on possible compensation, etc.), it doesn't mean that party B will be able to default again (on that particular commitment) in the future and automatically get off scott free, just because no action was taken last time... I hope you see what I mean!
One possible rendering might be:
Failure by either party (or one of the parties) to act upon a breach (or violation) of any one of the obligations shall not be interpreted (or construed) as...
I suppose another way would be - failure by either party to take action following a breach of any one...
Good luck!
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks to everyone for helping out, much reassured to see we all had roughly the same idea, albeit with slightly different emphasis. Supersim's was the text closest to that which I ultimately used, but as happens from time to time, I wish I could could everybody a point or two for their time and effort."
10 mins
see explanation
Yes, that's how I understand it, too. However you phrase it in English, it's difficult to be as non-specific as the French. For instance, you could also say "if either party fails to enforce his rights in the event of non-performance ....", but you are still adding somethign [in this case, "rights"]. Maybe someone else will be able to see a way around it.
+1
12 mins
The fact of a party not reporting a lack of compliance with any one of the...
... contractual obligations shall not be construed as
I don't think 'penalties' are implied here. It is more that if one of the parties fails to flag up the fact that the other has not met its obligations should not be accepted as tacit acceptance of this failure
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-12-15 12:39:42 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Failure of one of the parties to report non-compliance with.... by the other, may not subsequently be construed as....
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-12-15 12:40:18 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
one last point: the rubbish sentence given in the first \"box\" is intended ONLY as an explanation
I don't think 'penalties' are implied here. It is more that if one of the parties fails to flag up the fact that the other has not met its obligations should not be accepted as tacit acceptance of this failure
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-12-15 12:39:42 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Failure of one of the parties to report non-compliance with.... by the other, may not subsequently be construed as....
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-12-15 12:40:18 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
one last point: the rubbish sentence given in the first \"box\" is intended ONLY as an explanation
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
jacrav
7 hrs
|
| neutral |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: I read this slightly differently, with a slightly different emphasis. Rather than failure to comply not amounting to tacit acceptance, but that irrespective of whether or not the other party decides to act, the obligation remains.
1 day 35 mins
|
13 hrs
Peter Freckleton
Australia
Australia
Native in English
Specializes in field
Australia
I am a litigation attorney and linguist
Native in: English
Works in: French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
74
Reshuffle
Eg
The waiver by either party of any breach of any obligation hereunder shall not be construed subsequently as a waiver of any right to enforce such obligation.
The waiver by either party of any breach of any obligation hereunder shall not be construed subsequently as a waiver of any right to enforce such obligation.
22 hrs
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
Native in English
Specializes in field
Psychologist, Court-certified legal
Native in: English
Works in: French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
172
French term (edited):
se prevaloir de
invoke, exercise a right, seek reliance upon, give effect to
exercise a right, seek reliance upon, to give effect to
Although you do of course find yourself adding or omitting words in translating a text, to do so as suggested here is dangerous in my view.
Play safe here as this part is about rights and obligations, which is what contracts are all about !
In ordinary English, what leads to confusion here is that there are two failings as it were :
- One party’s failure to seek reliance upon a right (de ne pas se prévaloir de qqchs)
- [in the event of] the other party failing to comply with one of its obligations under the agreeement (un manquement)
Just consider that if A does not respect one of his contractual obligations, then the fact that B decides not to exercise one of his contractual rights (to remedy, panalty, legal action – who knows ?) does not mean that A no longer has to comply with his obligations under the cotnract. In short, A doesn’t do as he is supposed to under the contract, B deceides to let it go, not to pursue the matter, A cannot get away with it. He still has to comply !
Suggested rendering in legalese for :
« Le fait, pour l’une des parties, de ne pas se prévaloir d’un manquement à l’une quelconque des obligations ne saurait être interprété dans l’avenir comme une renonciation à l’obligation en cause. »
Should one party fail to comply with the obligations set out herein, and the other party fail to seek reliance upon the provisions/exercise his rights as set out herein, the other party shall not consider that he is free from his duty to exercise the obligation in question.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 51 mins (2004-12-16 13:11:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
My notes to CMJ Trans\' suggestion are apparently niggly, but intending to shift the emphasis onto the fact that the contractual duties remain, irrespective of whatever the other party decides to do. The defaulting party still has to take positive action to comply with his obligations.
Although you do of course find yourself adding or omitting words in translating a text, to do so as suggested here is dangerous in my view.
Play safe here as this part is about rights and obligations, which is what contracts are all about !
In ordinary English, what leads to confusion here is that there are two failings as it were :
- One party’s failure to seek reliance upon a right (de ne pas se prévaloir de qqchs)
- [in the event of] the other party failing to comply with one of its obligations under the agreeement (un manquement)
Just consider that if A does not respect one of his contractual obligations, then the fact that B decides not to exercise one of his contractual rights (to remedy, panalty, legal action – who knows ?) does not mean that A no longer has to comply with his obligations under the cotnract. In short, A doesn’t do as he is supposed to under the contract, B deceides to let it go, not to pursue the matter, A cannot get away with it. He still has to comply !
Suggested rendering in legalese for :
« Le fait, pour l’une des parties, de ne pas se prévaloir d’un manquement à l’une quelconque des obligations ne saurait être interprété dans l’avenir comme une renonciation à l’obligation en cause. »
Should one party fail to comply with the obligations set out herein, and the other party fail to seek reliance upon the provisions/exercise his rights as set out herein, the other party shall not consider that he is free from his duty to exercise the obligation in question.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 51 mins (2004-12-16 13:11:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
My notes to CMJ Trans\' suggestion are apparently niggly, but intending to shift the emphasis onto the fact that the contractual duties remain, irrespective of whatever the other party decides to do. The defaulting party still has to take positive action to comply with his obligations.
Discussion