This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English translation: things that are, by definition, furniture or furnishings
10:13 Feb 19, 2020
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Real Estate
French term or phrase:meuble par nature
Acte de Vente.
I assume "bien meuble" = "élément mobilier" = "meuble" herein.
This bit is talking about the object of a property management company associated with the property:
"6.3./2.1.) La propriété par tous moyens de droit, et notamment par voie de dotation ou d’abandonnement sans prix : ...
* non seulement de tous les immeubles par nature, par destination y attachés. * non seulement de tous les éléments mobiliers par nature les garnissant, * mais encore la propriété par voie de délégation active et passive de tous les contrats et marchés de fournitures de fluides et de prescriptions et encore de tous contrats de travail, les uns et les autres à souscrire pour l’utilité de ses membres,
L’appropriation par tous modes d’acquisition de la propriété de tous autres biens immobiliers bâtis ou non bâtis, inclus ou non dans le périmètre de l’Association Foncière Urbaine Libre Générale et encore de tous autres biens meubles par nature nécessaires ou utiles.
La garde, la gestion, l’entretien, la maintenance et l’acquit des charges afférentes aux immeubles par nature par destination qui seront remis en dotation ou abandonnés sans prix à l’Association Foncière Urbaine Libre Générale , aux meubles par nature, les uns et les autres nécessaires à la destination et à la maintenance de l’ensemble immobiliers
6.3./2.2) La gestion, l’entretien et la maintenance de tous équipements collectifs immeubles par nature ou par destination et encore de tous meubles par nature et en particulier, celui des installations de nettoyage, stockage et évacuation des déchets, hygiène, dératisation, désinsectisation, sécurité, éclairage, signalisation, enlèvement des épaves aériennes et terrestres, enlèvement des boues et des neiges, etc…
6.3/2.4) La propriété, l’entretien et le fonctionnement de tous équipements immeubles par nature ou par destination et encore de tous meubles par nature sportifs, culturels, cultuels et de leurs annexes, dont la création serait dédiée, ultérieurement par l’Association Foncière Urbaine Libre Générale XXX ainsi que la réglementation de leur utilisation
"L’appropriation par tous modes d’acquisition de la propriété de tous autres biens immobiliers bâtis ou non bâtis, inclus ou non dans le périmètre de l’Association Foncière Urbaine Libre Spéciale et encore de tous autres biens meubles par nature nécessaires ou utiles ... "
Explanation: I note that you have also highlighted "éléments mobiliers par nature", however you should distinguish between "éléments mobiliers" and "meubles". Also, "meubles" should be in the plural, not in the singular as you have put it in your header term.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 13 mins (2020-02-19 10:27:04 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
The term "éléments mobiliers" = movable property, and includes not only furniture and furnishings, but other items as well, e.g books, ornaments, artwork etc.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2020-02-19 11:59:02 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
@Asker Harrap's Law Dictionary also gives it as "movable" or even "goods and chattels". However, as your text also uses the term "éléments mobiliers", it is reasonable to assume that they are distinguishing between them. It is also reasonable to assume that the use of the plural is significant. Harrap's also gives "meubles meublants" for household furniture, but I think that in normal use, even in legal documents, people would generally omit the "meublants" unless the context of the specific text gave rise to a need to include it.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 40 days (2020-03-30 16:22:40 GMT) Post-grading --------------------------------------------------
@Asker Thank you, but I think that Eliza's answer and comments have convinced me that she is right. Have a look at Wikipedia:
"The division of property into real and personal represents in a great measure the division into immovable and movable incidentally recognized in Roman law and generally adopted since. "Things personal," according to Blackstone, "are goods, money, and all other movables which may attend the owner's person wherever he thinks proper to go".[1] This identification of things personal with movables, though logical in theory, does not, as will be seen, perfectly express the English law, owing to the somewhat anomalous position of chattels real. In England real property is supposed to be superior in dignity to personal property, which was originally of little importance from a legal point of view. This view is the result of feudal ideas, and had no place in the Roman system, in which immovables and movables were dealt with as far as possible in the same manner, and descended according to the same rules. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_property_law
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but in your proposed answer and your comment to my "disagree" on that, are you claiming that cars are considered real property under US tax law? That's what it sounds like, but it's garishly incorrect, hence my question.
"I'm a lawyer so I am right". Possibly yes, possibly no. I know lawyers who are so steeped in their specialisms that they cannot communicate properly. I know translators who are not lawyers but who have an excellent grasp of legal terminology in more than one language/legal system. Make suggestions by all means but please stop this superiority talk. Why do patients get more than one medical opinion? Consider.
So those are physical objects ("des corps").... Eléments mobiliers: this is much broader; it includes intangibles (e.g. stocks and bonds; contract rights; trademarks and other intellectual property; etc.)...
A French legal dictionary defines "fonds de commerce" as "ensemble des éléments mobiliers corporels (matériel, outillage, marchandises) et incorporels (droit au bail, nom, enseigne) qu'un commerçant ou un industriel groupe et organise en vue de la recherche d'une clientèle, et qui constitue une entité juridique distincte..." (Lexique des termes juridiques 2018-2019 by Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard)."
My confidence about legal terms comes from the fact that I'm a practicing lawyer, as well as a FR-EN-FR legal interpreter certified by my state's judicial system.
See my 2nd response under your answer: could you please give some convincing evidence (with links, hopefully) to support your assertion that "éléments mobiliers" are different to "meubles" (I'm not sure whether you also claim a distinction between "meubles" and "biens meubles"). But we can't just take bald assertions from you: PROOF of some kind is needed: from your tone you seem to be speaking from a stance of confidence borne of proof. Can we see this please?
This is exactly right: "just because the only vehicles mentioned in your whole ST are petrol cars for personal use doesn't mean that "vehicles" means ONLY that. IOW "biens meubles" are NOT fixings nor fittings, it's a much more general category."
Yes. It's a broad legal term, and it should be translated by the equivalent broad legal term.
just because of what kind of "bien meubles" are mentioned in this ST (quite a limited range) doesn't change the basic fact that "biens meubles" is a very wide category.
To illustrate by another example: just because the only vehicles mentioned in your whole ST are petrol cars for personal use doesn't mean that "vehicles" means ONLY that. IOW "biens meubles" are NOT fixings nor fittings, it's a much more general category.
As for "qui est le pendant de la catégorie des immeubles par destination"
le pendant de = it's a similar case i.e. here it's the opposite of what you would expect it to be:
les immeubles par destination = movable property that is considered as /seen as being immovable
and vice versa
les meubles par anticipation = (parts of) immovable property that is considered as /seen as being movable
Blimey, that (harvests, unextracted stuff in a quarry) is not what really comes to mind when we talk about "immeubles par destination": to me this is fairly straightforwardly "fittings": they form part of a property (e.g. something like a light fitting), but they are not "part of the structure" (as you say at the end).
What do you understand by this phrase "qui est le pendant de la catégorie des immeubles par destination"? Surely "afin de faciliter la commercialisation" puts this category of things into a different one to bog-standard "fittings" (in, for example, a residential property), doesn't it?
All this is also a bit off-topic... what's your opinion of the "meubles par nature"?
Il s’agit de la catégorie crée par la jurisprudence qui est le pendant de la catégorie des immeubles par destination.
Ce sont des immeubles à qui on va attribuer de manière anticipé un caractère immobilier afin de faciliter la commercialisation. Exemple : des récoltes vendues sur pied, les produits non encore extraits d’une carrière. En l’état ces récoltes et ces produits sont des immeubles par nature mais compte tenu de leur future commercialisation, c’est-à-dire de leur séparation du fond, on va les considérer comme des meubles de telle sorte que leur vente sera elle aussi mobilière. https://cours-de-droit.net/la-notion-de-meuble-par-nature-de...
as for "immeubles par destination" the principle is very simple: these items on their own are movable property, but when functionally attached to an immovable property, they become also "immovable" themselves (because they are meant to be part of / used on that "immovable property" (farm, office block, residential block).
Unfortunately art. 524 muddies the waters about "immeubles par destination". These "fixtures" are said to include "Les ustensiles aratoires ; Les ruches à miel ; Les pailles et engrais." Strange. But anyway this is a bit off-topic.
Followed up SafeTex's useful link and it mentions there that art. 528 of the Code Civil defines it: "Sont meubles par leur nature les biens qui peuvent se transporter d'un lieu à un autre." I think in legalese this is nothing more nor less than "movables".
But what about "meubles d'un autre type" ? The next article, 529, hopefully gives a clue: "Sont meubles par la détermination de la loi les obligations et actions qui ont pour objet des sommes exigibles ou des effets mobiliers, les actions ou intérêts dans les compagnies de finance, de commerce ou d'industrie, encore que des immeubles dépendant de ces entreprises appartiennent aux compagnies. Ces actions ou intérêts sont réputés meubles à l'égard de chaque associé seulement, tant que dure la société. Sont aussi meubles par la détermination de la loi les rentes perpétuelles ou viagères, soit sur l'Etat, soit sur des particuliers."
Which of course is not the same as "meubles par destination". I searched in the Code Civil: only **immeubles** are found to be "par destination" therein.
anything that can be owned (inanimate objects, animals, slaves when it was legal) is divided in two broad categories: biens immeubles / biens meubles
so "biens meubles" has nothing to do with "les meubles" found in a house, it's even far wider than the distinction between 'fixtures' and 'fittings' - it's "movable property" in the most wider sense.
"tous équipements immeubles par nature ou par destination" = what is physically attached to the property - can not be moved - or is functionally part of the property, even if you could move it elsewhere vs tous meubles par nature (sportifs, culturels, culturels) = all "movable property" of the "... par nature" variety
tous autres biens meubles par nature = any other items of property movable by their nature / that are intrinsically movable property ???
I can't see how electric current can be included as (I'm sure Tony will correct me if necessary) there's no current, only voltage, until you complete the circuit by switching it on. Also, while current flows, I'm not sure it can be said to be capable of being moved from place to place. Has the law according to Bridge got anything to day about the relationship of current to voltage and resistance?
Very silly: I've just spotted that under "Meuble" Bridge does in fact have a relevant sub-entry: "meubles par leur nature" : "corporeal movables; goods; chattels. (Things which move (animals) or can be moved from place to place, e.g. boats, furniture, gas, electric current and bearer certificates not centrally deposited)." Bridge has some pretty wacky definitions, but that one's certainly got me scratching my head.
"Eléments mobiliers" can be much, much broader than physical furnishings, especially in the context of business/commercial property acquisition, which sounds like what this text is about.
A French legal dictionary defines "fonds de commerce" as "ensemble des éléments mobiliers corporels (matériel, outillage, marchandises) et incorporels (droit au bail, nom, enseigne) qu'un commerçant ou un industriel groupe et organise en vue de la recherche d'une clientèle, et qui constitue une entité juridique distincte..." (Lexique des termes juridiques 2018-2019 by Serge Guinchard, Thierry Debard).
In this case I think it's talking implicitly about éléments mobiliers corporels, due to the context (talking about buildings and then about the éléments mobiliers "les garnissant"). But we should be aware that éléments mobiliers can be extremely broad, and if it is clearly talking about both corporels and incorporels éléments, it might best be translated as "tangible and intangible personalty" (personalty being movable personal property -- with "personal" including corporate persons -- as distinct from real property/immobilier).
I think that we do distinguish, in English, between 'par destination' and 'par nature'. The former would be "intended as" and the latter "by definition" or "intrinsically".
Yes, absolutely, I know quite a bit about this fixtures and fittings labyrinth. And yes, I had a good long look, as ever, at the archives. I'm not sure that the category I'm talking about here is either fixtures or fittings, however: I suggest that éléments d'équipement (i.e. fixtures and fittings, whether par destination or not) are not in fact the same thing as éléments mobiliers / meubles / biens meubles... But I'm open to argument.
'biens mobiliers' does not necessarily mean actual 'furniture' (though it does of course include that!) — this is more about the distinction we make in EN between 'fixtures' and 'fittings'. And 'par destination' and 'par nature' is a distinction that AFAIK we don't usually make in EN. Have you tried the glossary? I'm pretty sure we've had quite a bit of discussion around these terms in the past.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
un meuble par nature
a (Scots law) movable by nature (E&W) intrinsically a chattel personal
Explanation: (one third of) movables in Scots law are what next-of-kin automatically inherit and is a readymade Roman civil-law term.
In English & Welsh law, chattel personal contrasts with chattel real like, anomalously in E&W, leaseholds or in, US Am law, a motot car as a 'piece of real estate'.
par destination > by intended use(r) and not 'by destination' as fixtures & fittings cannot travel self-propelled.
éléments mobiliers: (Scots) movable items (E&W) fittings - as part of fixtures that cannot be detached and fittings than can be.
Biens meubles par nature: cf, Allegro's personal effects.
peer agreement (net): +1
