Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Norwegian term or phrase:
bristende forutsetninger
English translation:
subsequently failed contractual assumption
Added to glossary by
brigidm
May 7, 2004 07:22
20 yrs ago
6 viewers *
Norwegian term
bristende forutsetninger
Norwegian to English
Law/Patents
Law: Contract(s)
Tittel på paragraf i en aksjonæravtale. Avsnittet leser videre: Dersom vesentlige rammebetingelser og herunder kundegrunnlaget for Selskapet i vesentlig grad endrer seg negativt i forhold til situasjonen ved signering av denne avtale, og dette ikke kan tilregnes Nøkkelaksjonærene, har Partene som felles intensjon å søke å reforhandle denne Avtale dersom Avtalen ellers ville være sterkt urimelig.
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
12 mins
Selected
subsequently failed contractual assumption
Ronald Craig (Stor N-E Jurisdisk Ordbok) has a long article about "bristende forutsetning".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-07 07:47:12 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
See also Craig\'s notes on the difference between \"bristende forutsetninger\" and \"sviktende forutsetninger\" and his comments on the AAL concept of \"frustration\".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-07 07:47:12 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
See also Craig\'s notes on the difference between \"bristende forutsetninger\" and \"sviktende forutsetninger\" and his comments on the AAL concept of \"frustration\".
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks!"
15 mins
Failure of conditions
Declined
Bristende er det samme som sviktende og man hoerer ofte uttrykket "sviktende forutsetninger". Svikte = to fail, i dette tilfellet synes substantivet aa vaere best etter min mening
Comment: "Thanks for your help - please see my comment on final choice."
+1
36 mins
(subsequent) frustration of contract ; failure of non-severable obligations (Treitel)
Declined
Though I have Craig's glossaries and am an admirer of his, I believe 'frustration' is what the Eng. header would be for a subs. failure.
I include failure of non-sev. obligs in case anyone disputes the whole contract being frustrated. Treitel on Eng. Contract law reckons it's individ. non-severable obligs. that crash. If thery were severable, the whole contract wouldn't.
Initial failure: total failure of consideration i.e. sthg given in return or a fundamental cond. precedent.
Kevin's Eng. law glossary: 'A contract is said to be `frustrated' if it becomes impossible to perform, or if circumstances change to the extent that performance would be substantially different from what was anticipated by the parties. Consider the following (imaginary, but typical) case. X offers 50,000 to Y to build an extension on his (X's) house. X pays a deposit of 2,000, with an agreement to pay the balance on completion. After Y has started work, it becomes apparent that the ground around X's house is not stable enough to support an extension, and any attempt to do so would result in the foundations disappearing rapidly into the ground. Y cannot, therefore, perform his part of the contract. X has paid his deposit, but not got anything in return. Y has incurred considerable expense in designing the extension and getting in supplies. So X would like to recover his deposit from Y, Y would like to recover his expenses from X, and both parties would like to be released from any further obligations under the contract'
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-08 11:09:11 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Post-grading -> a contract is automatically discharged by frustration in \'AAL\' - Craig also says so in so many (AE) words. No need to terminate it. Reneg. of the contract would be consistent with such recognition of discharge.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-10 12:52:20 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwegian lawyer\'s comments.
With respect, equating mislighold= breach with frustration, impossibility of performance or failure of obligs. is just wrong. Even the under-used UK Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 talks nowhere of a party\'s breach or fault, but the timing and compensation of any \'valuable benefit conferred\' pre-frustration.
\'De andre er egengtlig ikke riktige etter min mening. Det er
klart ikke snakk om noe *mislighold av gitt garanti eller
*mislighold av vilkår inntatt i avtalen. \'
I include failure of non-sev. obligs in case anyone disputes the whole contract being frustrated. Treitel on Eng. Contract law reckons it's individ. non-severable obligs. that crash. If thery were severable, the whole contract wouldn't.
Initial failure: total failure of consideration i.e. sthg given in return or a fundamental cond. precedent.
Kevin's Eng. law glossary: 'A contract is said to be `frustrated' if it becomes impossible to perform, or if circumstances change to the extent that performance would be substantially different from what was anticipated by the parties. Consider the following (imaginary, but typical) case. X offers 50,000 to Y to build an extension on his (X's) house. X pays a deposit of 2,000, with an agreement to pay the balance on completion. After Y has started work, it becomes apparent that the ground around X's house is not stable enough to support an extension, and any attempt to do so would result in the foundations disappearing rapidly into the ground. Y cannot, therefore, perform his part of the contract. X has paid his deposit, but not got anything in return. Y has incurred considerable expense in designing the extension and getting in supplies. So X would like to recover his deposit from Y, Y would like to recover his expenses from X, and both parties would like to be released from any further obligations under the contract'
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-08 11:09:11 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Post-grading -> a contract is automatically discharged by frustration in \'AAL\' - Craig also says so in so many (AE) words. No need to terminate it. Reneg. of the contract would be consistent with such recognition of discharge.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-10 12:52:20 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwegian lawyer\'s comments.
With respect, equating mislighold= breach with frustration, impossibility of performance or failure of obligs. is just wrong. Even the under-used UK Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 talks nowhere of a party\'s breach or fault, but the timing and compensation of any \'valuable benefit conferred\' pre-frustration.
\'De andre er egengtlig ikke riktige etter min mening. Det er
klart ikke snakk om noe *mislighold av gitt garanti eller
*mislighold av vilkår inntatt i avtalen. \'
Comment: "Thanks for your help - please see my comments on final choice."
8 hrs
breach of implied warranty
Declined
Ref.: Åge Lind N/E Juridisk ordbok
breach of ....;mistaken premise dvs. fremtidige forhold som kan gjøre avtale, osv . ugyldig - ie future event which may or may not render a contract, etc. invalid.
breach of ....;mistaken premise dvs. fremtidige forhold som kan gjøre avtale, osv . ugyldig - ie future event which may or may not render a contract, etc. invalid.
Comment: "Thanks for your help - please see my comment on final choice."
1 day 2 hrs
bristende forutsetninger
Declined
Jeg skal naa ikke si mer enn at ditt valg ikke har noe med bristende forutsetninger aa gjoere. Hvis du ikke likte mitt forslag burde du i stedet ha godtatt svaret "breach of implied warranty"
fra Bjoerdal. Svaret som du godkjente har ikke noe med sviktende bristende forutsetninger aa gjoere. Jeg sier deg dette fordi jeg har studert jus ved Universitetet i Bergen. Men valget er selvsagt ditt, men som oversettere er vi pliktig aa finne det riktige uttrykket, og det har du ikke i og med du valgte det som du valgte.
Ha en fin dag.
fra Bjoerdal. Svaret som du godkjente har ikke noe med sviktende bristende forutsetninger aa gjoere. Jeg sier deg dette fordi jeg har studert jus ved Universitetet i Bergen. Men valget er selvsagt ditt, men som oversettere er vi pliktig aa finne det riktige uttrykket, og det har du ikke i og med du valgte det som du valgte.
Ha en fin dag.
Comment: "Takk for tilbakemelding. Mitt valg har ingenting med å like/ikke like et forslag - selvfølgelig vil jeg finne det riktige uttrykket - eller "play safe" i dette tilfelle. Jeg vil gjerne diskutere dette videre med deg - skal sende e-post "off-forum". Hilsen Brigid"
Discussion
N�r dette er situasjonen, ville jeg tro at en mest mulig forklarende oversettelse av selve begrepet innledningvis, burde v�re godt nok fordi oversettelsen av resten av bestemmelsen forklarer hva denne akjon�ravtalen skal regulere.
Av de forslag du kommer med er det f�rste etter min mening klar det riktigste - subsequently failed contractual assumption.
De andre er egengtlig ikke riktige etter min mening. Det er klart ikke snakk om noe mislighold av gitt garanti eller mislighold av vilk�r inntatt i avtalen.
Bristende forutsetning kan forklares med at en av partene har en forutsetning for � inng� avtalen, som ikke kommer til uttrykk i avtalen, men allikevel er s� klar for motparten at han vet at det er en forutsetning som det bygges p� n�r avtalen inng�s. Dersom en slik forutsetning ikke sl�r til, vil den parten som hadde forutsetning kan kreve reforhandling av avtalen eller komme helt ut av den...".
Hope this may prove useful to someone in the future. I for one have learn to treat this term with deep respect..!