… if the contract is translated into another language (for example. B because local law stipulates that contracts are written in an officially recognized language so that the contract is valid and enforceable). It is important to recognize this and determine which version will prevail in the event of contradictions or contradictions between the two. The following provision on the dominant version in the case of a translation of the contract: The reason is simple: If you expect to sue in a Chinese (or foreign) court, the staff of that court will not speak English. You won`t read English. Even if they read English, the Tribunal`s procedural regulations will require that the documents be translated into the national language. If you have already found that the party with whom you enter into a contract has no fortune outside of his own country and that discharge in the district court is faster than an arbitration procedure, why would you want an English-language contract to salt these foreign proceedings? The only language for the foreign court is his, and contracts that are in several languages will confuse the subject. A single contract in a single language (the jurisdiction that sees and imposes it every day) will make the procedure faster, cheaper and simpler – three words that make the customer happy.
The language. This agreement was developed in English. If there is a discrepancy between the English version of this contract and a translation, the English version is given priority. Why is this necessary? The contractual law of most nations follows the well-known principle that there must be a meeting of minds to conclude a binding treaty. If not, there is no contract. Each foreign nation has different rules of evidence as to what is allowed in the evidence, if they prove what the parties understood they received for the benefit of the good deal. Many laws allow the use of parol evidence. Thus, the UN Convention on International Goods Contracts allows the courts: which apply it to take into account “all relevant circumstances” of the contract – this would apply to both the initial language contract and the translation (cf. z.B.
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D`Agostino, S.p.A., 144 F.3d 1384 (11 cir. 1998)). The use of parol evidence is even more applicable when the translation was signed by both parties and the translation was a subject or scenario that seemed to abstain from the original language. The unfortunate result is that the courts (or arbitration tribunals) must rule on these types of cases, as it is less likely that the parties will be able to resolve their own disputes amicably. Instead, they will all think that their own interpretation of the treaty is feasible and spend far too much money to argue over this interpretation. Your client can tell you, “I can`t read a Chinese contract. What am I going to do with it? I don`t know what I have to do. It may be quick, cheap and easy when we have a conflict in China, but it seems to me that is not the case at the moment. The simple solution is to provide your client with a translation for his own use and daily reference. Is it the same as the recommendation to include in the treaty a clause stipulating that the Chinese version of the contract is official and that the English translation applies, except in the event of a conflict? No no.
The English translation is only for reference purposes – it does not even need to be made available to the other party, and it does not need to be signed by them. The mere copy of a contract means that there is only one language negotiation, a sentence negotiation and a version of the contract that could never be controversial.