Select Page

In addition, it should be noted that it is desirable to insert a clause specifying the statutory language of one of the parties in the event of differences between the parties, either because they are prescribed by the law of one of the parties. It is also important to indicate the language to use for notifications, especially in long-term contracts. The text of this Contract, as well as the resulting documents, and the Annexes, were written in the languages…………. and French, both versions being considered official, however the language indicated as priority for its interpretation will be the language version ……………. If the international treaty is two more languages (English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, etc.), the language clause must determine the version that predominates in priority versions in the event of a dispute. Otherwise, international rules, such as unsteady principles, should be applied. Article 7.7 of these principles deals with linguistic differences: when a treaty is concluded in two or more identical language versions, in case of discrepancies between versions, a preference for interpretation according to a version in which the treaty was originally drawn up. … 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: Take into account the time normally required to develop and negotiate an English-language trade agreement for your client – and the extent to which the parties can argue over the registration or exclusion of a word or phrase. In the event that two languages are used and signed by a client, negotiations and questions should focus on both contractual formats. When the parties sign a contract and it is considered part of their agreement, they should be aware of it; their ignorance of the foreign language will not be an excuse. What`s wrong with these clauses? Why don`t they solve the problem of language priority? Finally, both clauses reflect the fact that the contract is written in two languages and only one is the mandatory version. If there is conflict, the first language will predominate. Therefore, there should never be an argument between the parties over the interpretation of treaties. There`s only one contract that counts, isn`t it? The first sentence may seem superfluous, but recognizes that a translator should not translate the English word into (the characters say) “Chinese.”