Tony M Oct 22, 2020:

@ Patrick Not at all, this is perfectly standard usage in commercial EN!
"XXX is not required to supply the conveyor belt, as it will be provided by the customer, to be fitted by (presumably) XXX"

The only thing that is unclear, but does not concern us here, is whether the fitting is to be performed by XXX (along with the other things they are supplying), or if in fact the fitting is to be performed by some other third party.
'Free issue' is a term specifically used in this way, instead of the more simplistic 'provided by', to indicate that the customer 'issues' the item in question (free of charge, naturally) in order for the contractor (usually supplying other items) to fit it for them; so it is only 'providing' for the purposes of then having it installed by the contractor; thus such items may be delivered to the work site, for example, at an early stage for incorporation into the installation, long ebfore the customer moves in with all their other property.
Note to that 'free issue' quite often means that the articles are not necessarily new — they may well be something the customer is already using, that just need to be incorporated into some new installations.

Franck Sarrazin Oct 22, 2020:

@patrick Entièrement d'accord avec vous.

Patrick Arbaut Oct 22, 2020:

@Tony Si je suis d'accord avec la traduction de "free issued" proposée par Cyril, qui est la traduction normale et évidente et qui ne devrait même pas faire l'objet d'une question, je reste très dubitatif sur la traduction de l'ensemble (car c'est tout de même la phrase qu'il faut traduire et pas seulement une expression. Et pour moi, elle n'a a priori aucun sens (problème de logique). D'ailleurs si l'asker pose la question, c'est justement parce qu'il y a un souci ! Et je pressens qu'il faut le traduire par "reste à la charge du client".

Tony M Oct 22, 2020:

@ Johannes There's no need to pester the poor Asker for additional information when none is needed. This expression is perfectly understandable to any native speaker of EN with experience in relevant fields.

Johannes Gleim Oct 22, 2020:

@ Tony It's up to Marilyn to decide what she communicates. The confusion is still present, see Patrik's posting.

Tony M Oct 22, 2020:

@ Johannes There is no confusion whatsoever about this perfectly standard commercial EN expression, for which a satisfactory suggestion has already been given.

Johannes Gleim Oct 22, 2020:

@ Marilyn In order to resolve the confusion caused by the statement "conveyor belt is outside of XXX supply and will be free issued by the client", we need to know what the supplier provides for the conveyor belt and why it is not included in the supply.

It would also be useful to indicate the purpose of the conveyor, its use, and whether it is already present.

Tony M Oct 21, 2020:

@ Patrick There is nothing "bizarre" about this expression, it is standard in commercial EN, at least in GB. We more often use the adjective 'free issue'; this past participle form is less common, but necessary to avoid having to say 'issued free' — at least, perhaps someone wasn't quite sure the best way to handle it...

Patrick Arbaut Oct 21, 2020:

La formulation est vraiment bizarre, on aurait plutôt tendance à vouloir lire "à la charge du client": cela donnerait "le tapis transporteur n'est pas inclus dans la livraison et reste à la charge du client"

Franck Sarrazin Oct 20, 2020:

Si ça peut vous aider Je comprends que "Le tapis roulant (selon le contexte et la terminologie adoptée par votre donneur d'ordre) n'est pas fourni par le prestataire mais par le client."

Tony M Oct 20, 2020:

@ Asker Try searching this term, possibly in the reverse language pair (FR > EN) — we've had it before that way round, but I can't remember what the FR was!

It means soemthing that the service provider has to use / incorporate in their equipment etc., but which is provided to them free of charge by the customer for them to be able to do so.