Chinese term (edited): ʵ��Ȩ�������������в��е�

按照提问的问题，应该是关于此句英文的中译问题，我的一孔之见如下：
翻译成“实体权利义务由买方享有并承担”，也是可以，但似乎少了点什么。
1。可否改成主动句，中文的被动句用法没有英语广泛；
2。分开“享有”和“承担”，重复“实体”，使中文表达更明确，重点更突出；
3。加上承上启下的词”同时“或者说把"and"翻出来，使中文表达更严谨，符合法律文体的特点；
4。在“实体”后加“的”，使“权利”和“义务”更明确，也更符合原文的“entity right”和“entity liability”二词组的noun plus noun 结构；
5。“entity”即使在法律范畴内，也有很多译法，如单位、企业、法人等等。因为未见到更多的上下文，所以在此不敢妄加评论；
6。原文的“sellar"应该为“seller"吧？
请多指教。谢谢！

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 30 mins (2004-08-02 16:07:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

SECOND THOUGHT：如仅仅是一般的商业合同，在“同时”前，不妨加“但”字，来改善一下语气。

Chinese term (edited): ʵ��Ȩ�������������в��е�

I am not sure if the Chinese sentence is actually a translation from English. Anyway, for 實體權利義務, I can't think of a better translation than substantive rights and obligations. I do not believe there are such rights and obligations in Anglo-American law that may be called "entity rights and obligations" unless the Chinese expression refers to rights and obligations of a legal entity.

Word-for-word translation of 享有權利 is generally "enjoy rights" but more commonly American lawyers say "to have right" or "entitled to right." The problem is that you can't use the same verb for "obligations."

The sentence may also be better translated into an English passive sentence (passive sentences are very common in legal English). For example:

Substantive rights shall be enjoyed and obligations assumed by Seller.

This sentence is rather awkward. I would translate it into:

Substantive rights and obligations shall go to (the) Seller.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 3 hrs 41 mins (2004-08-04 18:18:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry the word \"seller\" should be \"buyer.\"