As we can see, the three concepts reflect the idea of the agreement as it is used in the legal texts. They are so closely linked that one is defined directly after the other and can be used interchangeably depending on the context. 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. In the area of private law, we usually find contracts within the framework of convenios, that is, the voluntary agreement for the creation and transfer of obligations and rights. On the other hand, a convenio not only creates and transfers these rights and obligations, but alters or dissolves them. 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.
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. Let`s start by finding out what an agreement really is. In the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the following definitions are provided: 1.a. the act or fact of consent; 1.b. Harmony of opinion, action or character: concord; 2.a.
regulations on the procedure to be followed; 2.b. compact, contract; 3.a.