3 ms·
The risk is substantial. Drafting standards are not equivalent across languages, and the translators are not legal translators. Legal vocabulary contains words
by ABCLAW 9y ago
The risk is substantial. Drafting standards are not equivalent across languages, and the translators are not legal translators.
Legal vocabulary contains words that are terms of art which are then bastardized and changed in usage when used in lay discussion, leading to differential meanings.
Let's not even raise the issue of the language having dramatically different meanings and legal effects across jurisdictional lines even if the wording of the text is unchanged. Or the fact that best practices in drafting specific clauses might be changed in a few weeks following the release of new jurisprudence.
- jchw 9y agoIsn't that why many places declare only one of the variants to be legally binding and the others only for convenience?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> many places declare only one of the variants to be legally binding and the others only for convenience Variants of what?
- marco1 9y agoTranslations. Say, the English one is the official and legally binding one, and the Chinese and Spanish translations are only for added convenience, without any legal effect.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoAh, got it. You typically have to say that really explicitly in all the languages. Also, it depends. Generally speaking, best practice is to have one and only copy and then a phone call where it's explained however. Better practice is not to take legal advice from my Internet comments, because I am not a lawyer :D.
- marco1 9y agoTotally aware of that. Reviewing individual translations again, and repeating this from time to time, is definitely something that can and should be done in the future. So there's obviously an easy fix to the problems you outline, which are no fundamental problems.