3 See Len-Jay Inc. v. J.R.S. Transport Inc., [2001] R.R.A. 799, reject, C.A., 2003-09-03, 900-09-011248-010; Parent company v. British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd., [1999] R.J.Q. 843, refused, C.A. 2001-05-10, 200-09-002526-991; Bacon-Gauthier v. Royal Bank of Canada, 1997 R.J.Q. 1092. Parties and their advisors should consider the time and resources (including legal fees) spent developing contracts. No lawyer would dream of telling a client that the exact language used in a contract “doesn`t matter.” But if the translations offered in multilingual contracts are not verified, that is exactly what lawyers do. The parties often pursue each other over the meaning of a single word in a contract.

Contractual disputes are challenged on appeal where there is a clear conflict between two words, two sentences or two paragraphs in a contract. The lack of precision in a translation invites problems when there is no need. Some states have also adopted specific rules on translation. For example, Texas Rule of Evidence 1009 provides a general overview of the authorisation and intercess of foreign language translations as documentary evidence. Translation of a document into a foreign language is generally permitted provided that it is accompanied by an affidavit from a qualified foreign language translator, indicating the translator`s qualifications and that the translation is fair and correct. There are also procedures for submitting the document to the other party and contradicting the translation. For states that do not have such rules of evidence, the parties can nevertheless establish the Texas rule as a rule for establishing a reasonable record of the reliability of the proposed translation. 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? Your client can tell you, “I can`t read a Chinese contract.

Comments are closed.