Nikki Scott-Despaigne Nov 24, 2016:

@Gombo In a contract, one party makes an offer, (party A), another party accepts the offer (party B). Under English law, one immportant thing to make a contract valid, is the payment of "valuable consideration" by B to A.

In your contract, you need to be absolutely clear about which party is making the offer and which party is accepting the offer. Once you have that straight, then the rest will become clear. I initially understood your party A was the "bailleur" and your party B was the "loueur". If it is the other way round, then the rest of the contract should help make that clear.

Only once these elements have been clearly established will you be able to see who's who.

Julius Ngwa (asker) Nov 23, 2016:

@Charles Lessor and sub-lessor seem right, given my context. For "locataires", I'll use "clients" to designate the actual users of the pieces of equipment. Now, the text says the "Loueur", which actually gets the equipment from the supplier, "adresse une demande de financement au bailleur". I would have expected it, again given the context, to be the other way round.

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Nov 23, 2016:

The "bailleur" Charles makes a valid point. The "lesssee" need not be the owner of whatever he is renting out. He too may in fact be renting the equipment. However, for the purposes of this particular agreement, you can only use the information you have and you appear to have two parties : one in the position of 'lessor', the other as 'lessee'. From a legal and a practical point of view, the key issue is the relationship between the two parties to this particular agreement.

Charles Davis Nov 23, 2016:

@Gombo Financial leasing (or credit leasing) is a complicated business and there are various modalities and ramifications, not all of which I understand. But the arrangement now makes more sense. The bailleur is presumably called that because it enters into "crédit-bail" contracts with the locataires; these are what we normally call financial leasing rather than rental in English, the difference being that crédit-bail includes the option to buy at the end of the term of the lease. But as you describe it, it seems that there is a chain from the supplier to the loueur to the bailleur to the locataires. The bailleur seems to be, in effect, a sub-lessor.

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Nov 23, 2016:

Two parties : one offering, one renting Forget the term "renter". "Loueur" is not a great choice in French and it leads one to thiking of "renter" which is not a clear choice either. Thankfully the context makes it clear that "loueur" is the equivalent of "lessee", altho' in context, that term does not strike me as at all appropriate. Unless I'm seriously mistaken and not udnerstanding this at all, then "Company" for "bailleur" might work here, as might "Client" for "loueur", no?

Julius Ngwa (asker) Nov 23, 2016:

Another term in the mix: Locataires

So, the "loueur" negotiates with a party that is not stated in the agreement to get equipment, which it gives the "bailleur" to lease out to its "locataires", which/who must be its clients, the folks/businesses that will be using the equipment on the field. Any ideas?

Julius Ngwa (asker) Nov 23, 2016:

@Charles
The "Loueur" is said to be "dédié à la location financière", while the "bailleur" is said to be "spécialisé dans la location financière". Crazy stuff if you ask me!!!

Tony M Nov 23, 2016:

@ Asker Presumably from the conditions of this agreement, you can fairly easily work out which is which, and translate accordingly, with a translator's note to the client explaining that you have had to make a terminological 'correction' for which only the writer can take responsibility!

Charles Davis Nov 23, 2016:

The only thing that occurs to me is that a party leasing or renting out a piece of equipment to another party would normally be called a loueur, not a bailleur, a word that is usually applied to real property. So I just wonder whether the party called the "bailleur" here is the party receiving the equipment for lease/rental and is the bailleur with respect to a separate transaction involving leasing a property to some other party. I know this sounds crazy but I saw a someone similar case not long ago.

Julius Ngwa (asker) Nov 23, 2016:

@Tony
I'm speechless. The document is from France, duly signed by the Parties. I was expecting lessor and lessee, but no, I have to deal with "bailleur" and "loueur" instead of "bailleur" and "preneur" for example.

Tony M Nov 23, 2016:

@ Asker Oh dear! What country is this from? It sounds to me like the writer simply got their terminology wrong, and misused 'bailleur' in place of 'preneur' etc.

It's easy enough to do, especially if coming from EN, where very many people confuse 'hirer / renter' as being either the owner renting out the item OR the person renting it!