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
pay off
Please see the question in the explanation box

Glossary entry

English term or phrase:

granted by the Contractor to a Principal

English answer:

discharge / release (which may be backed by an indemnity)

Added to glossary by Deborah do Carmo
Feb 18, 2005 19:04
19 yrs ago
3 viewers *
English term

law question - need a word

English Other Law (general)
The general context is a contract.

One of teh clauses refers to when the Works have been finished and accepted as in perfect order. The Contractor must then assure the Principal, by means of a written document that is signed by him, that he will lay no claim of any kind to the Works, that the Works are delivered free of all kinds of liability, encumbrances or charges (e.g loans, taxes due, etc) and that noone can come back to the Principal and take his Works away from him (in baby language!)...

The word in PT is quitacao, en ES, quita, both translated by 'quittance', 'aquittance', 'release', but I'm not sure what the right word is in this context in EN.
Responses
4 +1 discharge
5 quietus
5 Quietus/final discharge
4 (full and final) release
4 -1 waiver
3 aquittance
4 -1 renunciation

Discussion

Non-ProZ.com Feb 18, 2005:
No, it's info only, so I want to be as literal as possible too:-)
Deborah do Carmo Feb 18, 2005:
Charlie makes an excellent point - but I've assumed you've meant information-only translation from PT�EN or ES�EN - however important to know
Charlie Bavington Feb 18, 2005:
Could I ask whether the purpose is to create a legally-binding English-language contract, and if so, for which country, or if it's just a information-only translation?
Non-ProZ.com Feb 18, 2005:
Here's my context: (i) Formalised and effective ***** that fully observe the applicable legal precepts, signed by the Contractor, his Subcontractors, suppliers and any other persons who have or may have claims of any kind against the Contractor and who may present or claim any kind of right over the Industrial Unit, affirming the broad, general, unlimited, non-retractable and irrevocable **** of any possible obligations or liabilities of any kind that may exist or may be claimed from the Principal or the Industrial Unit by reason of this Contract or the Works executed by the Contractor; and
(ii) A written declaration by the Contractor, accompanied by all the supporting documentation that the Principal may reasonably request, affirming the broad, general, unlimited, non-retractable and irrevocable **** of: (a) all claims and suits from third parties against the Contractor as also debits, debts, liabilities, obligations or charges incurred by him in relation to the performance of the Works, and (b) of any taxes owed by the Principal in relation to the performance of the Works and to the Industrial Unit
George Rabel Feb 18, 2005:
I mean, if it is some kind of structure, nobody is gonna come to "take it away" in the literal sense. They may claim rights of ownership.
George Rabel Feb 18, 2005:
"lay claim" sounds about right, Ailish. I laughed when I read your "baby language" commnent! : )

Responses

+1
17 mins
Selected

discharge

Is the word you are looking for looking at both your text as translated and the PT and SP source words provided

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 mins (2005-02-18 19:24:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

RELEASE (as mentioned by Yuri) or DISCHARGE will both work in this context.

It is definitely not indemnity here but as Yuri correctly points out that may well be covered in another clause - an indemnity would effectively back-up this discharge or release

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 mins (2005-02-18 19:27:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

a possible indemnity will only come into play once the discharge or release are proved ineffective, i.e. once there are come-backs

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 20 mins (2005-02-18 22:24:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

waiver and renunciation do not work in this context at all - here the contractor is providing a discharge or release to the Principal affirming all is in order as opposed to 3rd parties etc - it is a positive act of discharge or release. The only party that could waive or renounce the right to that here that here would be the Principal.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 24 mins (2005-02-18 22:28:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

the Principal can waive the liability of the Contractor obviously - but here we are talking from the perspective of the Contractor - a written declaration BY THE CONTRACTOR - he cannot waive claims that others may have - he can only provide a discharge or release to that effect that may or may not be backed-up by an indemnity

In this equation only the Principal can waive!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 29 mins (2005-02-18 22:34:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

if you view a discharge in the form of a type of guarantee (which may be backed up by an indemnity - \"I\'ll pay if I\'m wrong\") that none such claims exist - it may avoid the error that has been made by the proponents of waiver or renunciation - remember we are talking about the CONTRACTOR here and what his declaration entails not what the Principal decides to do with it.

I CANNOT waive the rights of third parties. I can only provide a guarantee, a release, a discharge that none such claims exist and I may go one step further and decide to indemnify you if I am wrong. (i.e put my money where my mouth is)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 42 mins (2005-02-18 22:47:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Perhaps subscribers are unaware but the English bar took a fairly recent decision to steer clear of all Latinisms as far as possible - law students and lawyers alike are directed to avoid at all costs.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs 59 mins (2005-02-19 10:04:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

for those that don\'t follow the notes above for being a tad too technical perhaps, who knows, the following:

In this situation:

the CONTRACTOR can give a DISCHARGE or RELEASE

ONLY the PRINCIPAL can WAIVE OR RENOUNCE that

and as for adding the word final: there has been no issue of an earlier provisional discharge (i.e. conditional) so it doesn\'t come into play - read what is already provided in the text the :broad, general, unlimited, non-retractable and irrevocable DISCHARGE/RELEASE - the adjectives have already been chosen in the source text - you want to add final after irrevocable??? Really, it\'s necessary to read in context first and to understand the law before having tunnel vision here.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs 7 mins (2005-02-19 10:11:47 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

and besides: do not reject other terms and let the asker decide??

The asker has been given two options here from the wrong side of the coin - from the perspective of the PRINCIPAL - that have been self-rated 4 and yet are clearly incorrect. Quite honestly that is very irresponsible, if she chooses them her transaltion (even if only informative) will be completely wrong. That is why we have disagree and neutral options to help guide the asker.

The rejection was not summary - if you had bothered to read the notes, it would have been crystal clear - there is simply not enough space to deal with it under your answer, so what is wrong to referring you to what is already stated?

People should really stop taking a neutral or disagree as a personal affront - it is directed at the incorrect use of language, read and learn something - on another day do it back if I\'m wrong - how else to we learn?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs 7 mins (2005-02-19 10:12:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

do we learn?
Peer comment(s):
agree Derek Gill Franßen : Nice argumentation. For centuries there have been attempts to rid legal terminology of latin terms (with more or less success). From the standpoint of job security, I don't think it will work, though I - not having studied latin - wish it would. ;-)
5 hrs
Have studied Latin and loved it but it distances the Law from the layman and seriously you get penalised these days for using it in exams etc - some terms are simply too entrenched though, will never disappear completely. Thanks!
neutral Refugio : Your option is not wrong, but your summary rejection of equally valid terms is. Let the asker decide.//Good question you ask at the end there. ;~}
5 hrs
There is no summary rejection - your term is not equally vaild with all respect, it is totally wrong - and a full explanation why HAS already been given above - look and read first next time - it's very clearly stated, I've added again if it helps
neutral Anna Maria Augustine (X) : final discharge
6 hrs
discharge is discharge Anna - in law if the word final is not added, it means final - the word final ONLY comes into play if there has been an earlier provisional and conditional discharge - look at preceding adjectives already and you still want final???
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Although Yuri's answer preceded this, this answer w/ notes has been really helpful in deciding between options, thanks:-)"
17 mins

(full and final) release

That would be the most common term in my experience. There's also a waiver of liability, but I think release is better. There might also be an indemnity clause so that a third party cannot lay claim to any of the "Works", such as a subcontractor who hasn't been paid.
Something went wrong...
-1
48 mins

waiver

"Formalised and effective *waiver* that fully observes the applicable legal precepts, signed by the Contractor, his Subcontractors, suppliers and any other persons who have or may have claims of any kind against the Contractor and who may present or claim any kind of right over the Industrial Unit, affirming the broad, general, unlimited, non-retractable and irrevocable *waiver* in respect of any possible obligations or liabilities of any kind that may exist or may be claimed from the Principal or the Industrial Unit by reason of this Contract or the Works executed by the Contractor; and
(ii) A written declaration by the Contractor, accompanied by all the supporting documentation that the Principal may reasonably request, affirming the broad, general, unlimited, non-retractable and irrevocable *waiver* of: ...."
This may work...
Waiver = renunciation, relinquishment, surrender, etc.
Peer comment(s):
disagree Deborah do Carmo : see notes under discharge
2 hrs
Something went wrong...
3 hrs

quietus

which is a release, by which one recognises that someone meant to perform works - duties - business....... has done it as stipulated and correctly, therefore can lay no claim........
Peer comment(s):
neutral Deborah do Carmo : same comment as under Anna//asker is providing an explanatory translation furthermore (see notes) - words directly derived from mediaeval Latin will not assist at all
6 mins
Something went wrong...
3 hrs

Quietus/final discharge

In jurisprudence the word is "quietus" and means final discharge (of a responsability)

Hope this helps...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 46 mins (2005-02-18 22:50:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It is all in Harrap\'s...which is pretty well much up to date.
Peer comment(s):
neutral Deborah do Carmo : no problem that the word exists Anna but it is archaic and has no place in a modern contract, - as a qualified lawyer I can confidentally confirm the present day legalese is discharge (or release).
11 mins
Something went wrong...
5 hrs
English term (edited): to lay no claim

aquittance

;-)
Something went wrong...
-1
11 mins

renunciation

PeaceWatch 131
... the history of Zionism-with a Likud government relinquishing claims to a piece of Eretz Yisrael ... in return an irrevocable renunciation of all future claims. Final status negotiations ...www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/peacewatch/peacewatch1997... - 13k - Cached - More from this site

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs 59 mins (2005-02-19 01:04:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Article 14(b) of the ``Multilateral Treaty of Peace with Japan,\'\'signed at San Francisco September 8, 1951, and in effect from April 28, 1952, stipulates that ``Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims by the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation.\'\' This is the article on which the Japanese government relies in rejecting all claims by former P.O.W.s and internees that they be compensated for their illegal treatment at the hands of the Japanese during the war. But there are legal problems with this defense, in addition to the political ones already mentioned. One is described by Tetsuo Ito of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs as follows: ``The waiver of `claims of its nationals\' can not mean the <<renunciation>> of such claims by a state in rigid legal terms, * * * because a state can not theoretically waive the right of a third person, without its consent, who is not a party to the treaty concerned, regardless of whether it is a state or an individual\'\' [J.Ann. Int. Law, No. 37, 1994, p. 68]. Individuals always retain the right to enter a claim based on their municipal law.
Peer comment(s):
disagree Deborah do Carmo : see comments under discharge//if you bother to read the notes under discharge, you'll see the explanation already covers that - there is not enough space here - that is why you were asked to refer there!
3 hrs
When disagreeing, you must state what you fancy is wrong with the term you disagree with, rather than simply referring to your alternative version, which gives no valid reason for rejecting the term renunciation.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search