| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Rented and leased Thread poster: Paul VALET (X)
|
|---|
| As the Books say | Jun 23, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
Why are these words used together when they mean the same thing?
Would it be a matter of origins difference?
[Modifié le 2012-06-20 12:50 GMT]
You may lease without interest or may lease for rent.
Also, don't forget "to let" ("the owners let and the charterers hire the vessel").
In other words, the rent can be described as one of the lease terms (other terms are bonuses, royalties, etc.) or as the consideration of a contract. I find enlightening this explanation of what is the lease as a relation between the parties: "In the simplest terms a LEASE gives RIGHTS to the gas, oil, or minerals from under your land as specified by the lease, for a specified period of time."
[Edited at 2012-06-23 18:20 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-23 18:22 GMT]
| | | | Paul VALET (X) 
France
Local time: 19:24
TOPIC STARTER | In other words… | Jun 23, 2012 |
My question was not a Kudoz, for I knew the answer to translate this phrase from English into French.
My question was more about the underlying legal style. Angus perfectly got what I meant.
So, my incidental question would be: “Wouldn’t it be possible to use a tightened up English legal style, or is an English speaking lawyer obliged to list numerous types of connected types of contracts (in this case, or other legal objects in other cases) to avoid a disput... See more My question was not a Kudoz, for I knew the answer to translate this phrase from English into French.
My question was more about the underlying legal style. Angus perfectly got what I meant.
So, my incidental question would be: “Wouldn’t it be possible to use a tightened up English legal style, or is an English speaking lawyer obliged to list numerous types of connected types of contracts (in this case, or other legal objects in other cases) to avoid a dispute?”
In other words, in the present example, wouldn’t it be possible to use an only verb that would cover both “to rent” and “to lease”, so that if a party contested that this only verb would not cover any of them a court would state that the dispute on that point would be a proof of bad faith? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 01:24
Chinese to English
| Not sure they're just covering possibilities here | Jun 23, 2012 |
The definitions I gave you were quite clear: rent is for tangible assets, lease strictly covers both tangible and intangible assets, but because of the existence of "rent", lease is often used when talking about intangible assets.
When you rent a property, you often need to rent a bunch of intangible assets as well: rent an office, and you need to lease the right of access to the office building; rent a car, and you need to lease the insurance cover (I think, not sure if that makes ... See more The definitions I gave you were quite clear: rent is for tangible assets, lease strictly covers both tangible and intangible assets, but because of the existence of "rent", lease is often used when talking about intangible assets.
When you rent a property, you often need to rent a bunch of intangible assets as well: rent an office, and you need to lease the right of access to the office building; rent a car, and you need to lease the insurance cover (I think, not sure if that makes sense legally, but you get the idea...).
A court would be unlikely to rule that a rental contract didn't cover the lease of such rights. However, if you've got a highly detailed contract (which you might well want for other reasons) and the word "lease" was missed out, a judge might conclude that it was excluded deliberately.
Having said all that, the use of two words may just be bad legalese. There is a whole movement for "plain English contracts" - which suggests that a lot of contracts are not written in plain English, and are in fact unnecessarily complicated. So it's possible you're right, and that redundant language has crept in. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:24
Member (2011)
French to English
+ ...
| I agree and in this instance the word would be "lease" | Jun 23, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
So, my incidental question would be: “Wouldn’t it be possible to use a tightened up English legal style, or is an English speaking lawyer obliged to list numerous types of connected types of contracts (in this case, or other legal objects in other cases) to avoid a dispute?”
In other words, in the present example, wouldn’t it be possible to use an only verb that would cover both “to rent” and “to lease”, so that if a party contested that this only verb would not cover any of them a court would state that the dispute on that point would be a proof of bad faith?
I broadly agree with what you are proposing here and (at least in relation to real estate) my view in relation to the specific context we are discussing is that the word "leased" would adequately cover the situation on its own without causing undue confusion. Of course there may be situations where existing legislation requires the use of other terminology in specific contexts, but in general I think that "leased" would suffice.
Phil Hand wrote:
Having said all that, the use of two words may just be bad legalese. There is a whole movement for "plain English contracts" - which suggests that a lot of contracts are not written in plain English, and are in fact unnecessarily complicated. So it's possible you're right, and that redundant language has crept in.
There is indeed a trend to move towards plain English and this is already happening in relation to many consumer contracts, although this doesn't necessarily extend to commercial contracts which tend to be more detailed. Nonetheless, the far sighted among the legal profession have been trying to encourage their colleagues to address this issue of redundancy for quite some time.
The difficulty is that as I have mentioned previously, lawyers are creatures of habit and having evolved their own "styles" of various deeds over many years prefer to stick to the comfort of what they know works. There is little prospect of this being addressed on an individual level, since the first lawyer to break cover with the pack and simplify things would be worried about exposing himself to the risk of a claim, in the event that he went too far and ended up omitting something that turned out to have significance.
Nonetheless there is hope. For instance, here in Scotland we have the Property Standardisation Group (if you are interested their website address is www.psglegal.co.uk) who have been working to get lawyers to agree upon standardised wording for the most common types of documentation used in property transactions. They haven't yet managed to agree upon a standardised wording for a lease yet, as that has proved to be too controversial a matter to achieve agreement on. However, once a standardised style of document is agreed, it makes it easier to get lawyers to agree collectively as to what is redundant and may be removed when those standardised documents are subsequently updated.
I'm not saying that it will be possible to remove all of what seems (to the lay person, or even the foreign lawyer) like duplication, since as I mentioned in a previous post, certain words that seem similar, may in fact have different meanings for legal purposes. In particular, it would not be possible to remove those words in relation to which the courts have already determined that there is a difference in meaning (for instance, my example of "cash" and "money") without legislative intervention.
In conclusion, I think that we will gradually see action on the part of the legal profession in addressing this issue of duplication/redundancy. Nonetheless, even once that happens this is still an issue that translators will have to grapple with for many years to come, as there will be a considerable number of "legacy" legal documents already in existence possessing a long lifespan.
[Edited at 2012-06-23 18:22 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-23 18:31 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 19:24
TOPIC STARTER | Thank you... | Jun 23, 2012 |
...to everyone.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 19:24
Italian to English
In memoriam
Hi again Paul,
Just a couple of afterthoughts on rent and lease.
First, the distinction is important in the common law of the Anglosphere but far less so in countries whose legal system is based on the Code Napoléon, which generally, as in Italy, use the English term "leasing" to describe local applications of the latter concept. French translations of "leasing", such as "location avec option d'achat", are only a very approximate rendering of time-limited purchase, co... See more Hi again Paul,
Just a couple of afterthoughts on rent and lease.
First, the distinction is important in the common law of the Anglosphere but far less so in countries whose legal system is based on the Code Napoléon, which generally, as in Italy, use the English term "leasing" to describe local applications of the latter concept. French translations of "leasing", such as "location avec option d'achat", are only a very approximate rendering of time-limited purchase, common law's third option to the purchase or rent/hire/letting of a good.
The second point is that French law is based on a civil (and penal, of course) code, which offers the benefit of brevity (many cases are covered by each article in the code) but lacks common law's flexibility (under common law, courts make law without the need for new legislation by ruling on individual cases).
Where French law may cite an article of the legal code, common law, which of course differs from one English-speaking country to another, needs to cover all the possibilities with what may look like redundant homonyms but are in fact case law-driven boilerplate.
The plain English movement, which I support wholeheartedly, is going to have to live with this.
[Edited at 2012-06-24 20:04 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | An off-topic comment to the PS | Jun 25, 2012 |
Giles, theorically, the Italian legal system uses different terms "l'affitto" (lease) vs "il canone" (rent) too. It is much more developed than civil+common laws together, because includes ancient law as well.
Hi,
[Edited at 2012-06-25 17:07 GMT]
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 19:24
Italian to English
In memoriam | The name is not the thing | Jun 25, 2012 |
Gennady Lapardin wrote: Giles, theorically, the Italian legal system uses different terms "l'affitto" (lease) vs "il canone" (rent) too. It is much more developed than civil+common laws together, because includes ancient law as well. Hi,
Hi Gennady,
It's not a question of terminology, though. There is a substantive difference between the verbs "lease" and "rent". A lease gives time-limited legal title to a good (ie, the lessee can sell the lease on) but rented goods remain the property of the original owner. Subsuming both notions into the single verb "louer" risks leaving out information.
Giles
PS We can talk about the Italian legal system some other time but if you want a genuine synthesis of European legal traditions try Scotland, where the legal system embraces Roman law, introduced by French-speaking Vikings (aka the Normans) a thousand years ago, and a robust tradition of common law.
| | |
|
|
|
Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 19:24
TOPIC STARTER | It’s just like classifying various things and giving a class name | Jun 25, 2012 |
Giles,
I understand your reasoning but I would have trouble following your argument to extremes.
The point was to know if it would be possible to gather some specific connected legal objects under one and only name. That seemed at first sight possible, since they are connected. It’s just like classifying various things and giving a class name for a specific identified class. The only problem should be to agree on what constitute that specific class and on its name.... See more Giles,
I understand your reasoning but I would have trouble following your argument to extremes.
The point was to know if it would be possible to gather some specific connected legal objects under one and only name. That seemed at first sight possible, since they are connected. It’s just like classifying various things and giving a class name for a specific identified class. The only problem should be to agree on what constitute that specific class and on its name.
So, I think Angus answered that it is possible to do that classification in the instance concerned, even if a classification implies a simplification. And it is apparently to avoid any dispute arising from that kind of classification/simplification that lawyers prefer sticking to listing the various types of legal objects concerned in their legal texts.
But you would probably agree that that kind of classification/simplification is inevitable, like in a law textbook, a statement of income or a job description.
If you consider the usual account named “Administrative expenses”, for example, you can imagine there is, inside, a lot of various “rent expenses” referring to various types of contracts. However, in common law as in continental law, lawyers, companies, auditors, accountants use the terms “administrative expenses”, “rent expenses” and the like. And that is true in other languages too.
Besides, one must not overestimate the capability of the “code civil” to make the simplification/unification I suggested. The code civil is only one of the numerous French codes, what you can verify on the following site: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechCodeArticle.do
In spite of their number, they don’t even contain all the French law. So, as far as brevity is concerned, the best is yet to come. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 19:24
Italian to English
In memoriam | Only moderately extreme | Jun 25, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
Giles,
I understand your reasoning but I would have trouble following your argument to extremes.
Hi again Paul,
No extremism.
All I am doing is pointing out that there is an important difference between the legal notions of "lease" and "rent". Whether this difference is of any significance to you will depend on your context, and possibly your accountant 
| | | | Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 19:24
TOPIC STARTER | Nobody contested that there is the difference | Jun 25, 2012 |
That is irrelevant to the subject.
[Modifié le 2012-06-25 13:14 GMT]
| | | | Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:24
Member (2011)
French to English
+ ...
| A Scottish perspective | Jun 25, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
If you want a genuine synthesis of European legal traditions try Scotland, where the legal system embraces Roman law, introduced by French-speaking Vikings (aka the Normans) a thousand years ago, and a robust tradition of common law.
Firstly, I'm glad to see that both your posts are a lot more focused this time. Indeed, now that you have refined your thinking, I even find myself in agreement with a number of (although by no means all) the points you make.
As someone who practiced Scots law for many years before becoming a translator and having focused for the latter part of that time upon leasing, as well as having had some exposure to the English system, I feel that I have a privileged position when commenting on this.
Giles Watson wrote: There is a substantive difference between the verbs "lease" and "rent". A lease gives time-limited legal title to a good (ie, the lessee can sell the lease on) but rented goods remain the property of the original owner. Subsuming both notions into the single verb "louer" risks leaving out information.
This is where I'm still not entirely in agreement with you. I do not recognize the specific distinction you are trying to draw, but I am prepared to accept for arguments sake that this may be the case in another jurisdiction (I can speak with certainty only from a Scottish perspective). If that is true, then surely the essence of your distinction is that between a real right and a personal right. In which case as a matter of logic the difference resides in the position viz-a-viz third parties rather than as regards the owner (i.e. the original owner), whose right of ownership persists in either case, albeit fettered by the right of lease, or rent, or whatever else we may want to call it. There is of course the concept of an "overriding interest", but let's not complicate things and leave that as a debate for another time.
Secondly, I still do not understand how the your explanation helps us understand how the intended meaning is altered in the context when they are both used together (i.e. where the translation unit is "leased and rented"). Taking your position (if I have understood you correctly) that the significance resides in the difference between a real right and a personal right, surely that we would be even more reason for a lawyer not to use them together as that could only lead to even greater confusion?
Giles Watson wrote: The second point is that French law is based on a civil (and penal, of course) code, which offers the benefit of brevity (many cases are covered by each article in the code) but lacks common law's flexibility (under common law, courts make law without the need for new legislation by ruling on individual cases).
Where French law may cite an article of the legal code, common law, which of course differs from one English-speaking country to another, needs to cover all the possibilities with what may look like redundant homonyms but are in fact case law-driven boilerplate.
Here I am 100% in agreement with you. There is indeed a very wide difference between the two legal cultures, as the civil law system has a preference for broad, general principles, whereas the common law tends towards spelling everything out in detail. I think that I had covered the point concerning case law previously, but in any event it is useful to spell that out if it wasn't sufficiently clear.
Giles Watson wrote: The plain English movement, which I support wholeheartedly, is going to have to live with this.
Again, I am in agreement. If there is a conflict between legal substance and plain English, then in my view the former must take precedence. Also, I sometimes find that plain English is less effective at making the meaning clear than legal English and we end up having to use more words to reach the same result.
However, this does not mean that we reach the same conclusion. Some of the consumer protection legislation, actually requires consumer contracts to be written in an intelligible form, as a condition of being enforceable so legal substance and plain English are not always in conflict, to the extent you seem to envisage.
Secondly, even though I accept that in the event of conflict legal substance has to take precedence over plain English, that does not mean that I do not accept that lawyers (and here I am speaking as someone who used to be responsible for drafting the sort of documents that Paul was referring to) tend to retain a lot of redundant terms and duplication that could usefully be removed in order to make the document easier to read without in any way impinging upon the meaning or legal substance.
In that context (and again I repeat that I can speak with confidence only from my own direct experience of the Scottish system), I can say that in the contexts that I used "leased and rented" together as a unit when drafting legal documents, even I would regard the "and rented" part as being largely if not wholly redundant.
Indeed, I would not stop there, for there were entire units that as lawyers we persisted in using (largely through habit) that were entirely redundant and could be removed without altering the underlying legal effect and that irrespective of whether the words appeared together or in isolation. The example that springs to mind is "part and pertinents". Originally, there were quite distinct concepts and both would have required to have been included, but through the passage of time and various changes to the legal system both have become obsolete. It is just that lawyers haven't got round to updating their style documentation yet to keep pace with an ever changing reality. There are many more examples of that type and my understanding is that, that is what Paul's question was referring to. It is precisely that point that needs to be addressed.
In the meantime, legal translators working out of English will need to be alert to this issue in order to be able to distinguish between the situation in which there is a very live difference of meaning in the common law systems, between words with superficially seems very similar and the situation where one or more of the terms is in fact redundant. That is a very great challenge and one which I certainly don't envy them.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 13:25 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-25 13:41 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 19:24
TOPIC STARTER | Reality is changing | Jun 25, 2012 |
Angus Stewart wrote: Giles Watson wrote: The second point is that French law is based on a civil (and penal, of course) code, which offers the benefit of brevity (many cases are covered by each article in the code) but lacks common law's flexibility (under common law, courts make law without the need for new legislation by ruling on individual cases).
Where French law may cite an article of the legal code, common law, which of course differs from one English-speaking country to another, needs to cover all the possibilities with what may look like redundant homonyms but are in fact case law-driven boilerplate. Here I am 100% in agreement with you. There is indeed a very wide difference between the two legal cultures, as the civil law system has a preference for broad, general principles, whereas the common law tends towards spelling everything out in detail. I think that I had covered the point in case law previously, but in any event it is useful to spell that out if it wasn't sufficiently clear.
Most of the legislation activity of the French parliament consists at present in implementing EU law nationally. 60% of the law that is applied in France nowadays comes from European directives and rules. It should be the same in every EU member state. Mathematically, our respective national laws will look alike.
In many cases, lawyers before French courts or before the ECJ have to use national or international case law and do use them in their pleadings, although I agree it is less necessary than in common law.
[Modifié le 2012-06-25 14:12 GMT]
| | | | Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:24
Member (2011)
French to English
+ ...
| Further clarification | Jun 25, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
60% of the law that is applied in France nowadays comes from European directives and rules. It should be the same in every EU member state. Mathematically, our respective national laws will look alike.
In many cases, lawyers before French courts or before the ECJ have to use national or international case law and do use them in their pleadings.
[Modifié le 2012-06-25 13:58 GMT]
That is true up to a point, but the example you chose came from property law which is one of the areas there is less interference EU law, largely because the nature of land means that it tends not to have cross-border implications.
Whilst acknowledging what you say about case law, there is still a very big distinction in the status of case law between the common law and civil law systems in this regard. Here in Scotland the courts do not just apply law to the facts of a case, or even just give authoritative guidance as to how the law is to be interpreted, but actually have what we can regard as law making powers.
| | | | Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 19:24
TOPIC STARTER | Globalization is another relevant cultural dimension to consider | Jun 25, 2012 |
Angus Stewart wrote:
That is true up to a point, but the example you chose came from property law which is one of the areas there is less interference EU law, largely because the nature of land means that it tends not to have cross-border implications.
Global companies have to consolidate data coming from various countries with their various laws. They just cannot give a series of annual reports in different languages and respecting only various local laws. An harmonization is necessary to consolidate and to manage them.
So they have to consider various aspects such as nature/destination of expenses or economy or tax. They just need international/corporate classifications with the adequate words and concepts.
That is often the problem in translation and management. You cannot always say "we are so specific" that we cannot compare or consolidate. You have to compare and consolidate according to concepts that don't cover every details of each national law.
[Modifié le 2012-06-25 14:39 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Rented and leased | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
