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.
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s)
French term or phrase:éviction
I understand the broad notion of this word as applied to contractual relationships but of course "eviction" is not the correct translation in this context. It is about the unjustified breaking-off of a contractual relationship such that entitlement to damages arises.
I have checked the glossaries and am not content with what I found as most entries were about the eviction of tenants, squatters etc. I have also read the French definitions of the term and the relevant sections of the French Civil Code, so I don't need these.
Does anyone have a more appropriate way of expressing this as I do not believe there is a direct equivalent in common law countries?
This is from the end of a claim by BBB against AAA for multiple breaches:
CONDAMNER subsidiairement la société AAA à verser à la société BBB la somme, à parfaire et par provision, de xxx euros à titre de dommages et intérêts du fait de son éviction et pour le surplus de fixer à dire d’Expert et dans les mêmes conditions que celles précitées, le complet préjudice de la société BBB
Explanation: du fait de son éviction > owing to their (the company's) being (coll.) wrongfully crowded out - (leg.) loss by repudiatory breach
This query rings loud bells with echoes of the UK case of White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413 (White & Carter) in which 'the claimant (an advertiser) agreed with the defendant (a garage owner) to renew an existing contract for their services. Later that same day, the defendant tried to pull out of the agreement in what amounted to a *repudiatory breach*.
The claimant, however, refused to accept the breach – thereby affirming the contract and preventing its termination – and performed their obligations as per the contract’s terms. When the defendant did not follow suit, it subsequently sued them for the full price of their services: an action for the agreed sum.
On the facts, the House of Lords accepted that the claimant was allowed to recover the price.'
The scenario also overlaps with the ENG tort of unlawful interference with a third party's contract except that, here, there is no third party and compare anticipatory repudiation in US Am. contract law.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 5 hrs (2020-08-19 20:36:30 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
You are welcome. I'm unsure éviction is being used in a strict legal sense and your idea of contract breach led me on to repudiation. My problem with loss is how it's classifiable: 1. loss of a chance (prospect) in ENG contract 2. loss of bargain when estimating damages in contract- as in the 2nd example sentence or 3. loss of the whole contract. Obiter, IATE also gives patrimonial fund for a fonds patrimonial, so is rather hit-and-miss.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 jour 6 heures (2020-08-20 21:13:40 GMT) Post-grading --------------------------------------------------
Strange - my answer has been entered in the glossary. No votes may mean silence is consent, the link with repudiatory breach in Anglo-Am or 'Anglo-Saxon' contract law has not been properly grasped - or there is a axe-to-grind mental block about my answers. Funnily enough, this phenomenon tying up with Safetex's idea of ostracising or spurning, I was going to suggest the non-legal term of 'stonewalling'.
Sorry you are disappointed, but I didn't agree with Adrian's answer because I didn't like or agree with "crowding out" and hadn't come across the term "repudiatory breach", so wasn't sure about that form of words. Possibly others may have had similar reasons.
In terms of US terminology as I understand it, at least, the choice of "repudiatory" confuses two separate concepts. Repudiatory describes a breach so serious that nothing worthwhile is left of the contract because it's beyond remediation. "Anticipatory" is what AllegroTrans seems to have in mind and it's a temporal concept, i.e., it means the defendant's nonperformance is so obviously inevitable that there's no point waiting to see what else happens before the plaintiff walks away from the contract and/or sues for nonperformance.
So for example if the defendant contracts to paint the house "bubblegum" color and is found to have purchased a truckload of "pink rose," the breach would be anticipatory because the plaintiff need not wait for the house to be painted before concluding it was not the agreed upon color. But the breach might not be repudiatory unless the plaintiff can show that the color difference is consequential.
A repudiation is where one party demonstrates (by its conduct) that it either is no longer able to substantially perform its obligations under the contract, or that it is unwilling to do so. Repudiation is more than just a mere breach.
In technical terms, the test for repudiation is whether a party has shown, through its conduct, that either:
- it no longer intends to be bound by the contract; or - it intends to fulfil the contract only in a way that is substantially inconsistent with the party’s obligations.
This test is applied objectively. A court will consider how a reasonable party would interpret the repudiating party’s conduct. The repudiating party's actual intentions are not a relevant consideration.
In my text AAA has effectively "torn up" its contract with BBB to the extent that it has put BBB out of business. BBB seeks exemplary damages, so assuming that a broadly similar test applies in French law, these conditions are met.
I am slightly disappointed not to see any 'agrees' to Adrian's thoughtful answer...
has moral connotations that would imply that the "ostracised" party has done something morally wrong / against community norms, exactly the opposite of what's happening in the ST.
"Expelled from the contract" is the idea of "l'éviction [de q.q.] d'un contrat"
From your last discussion comment, it looks as though you think "éviction" is a specifically legal/contractual term, not just a description of being excluded from advertising. In that case, what about "repudiation"?
This isn't "instead of" breach of contract, it's framed as a claim (for damages) in addition to damages for breach of contract. Sorry if this wasn't clear. So far as "rights" are concerned these can only be contractual rights as this is a contract claim. Whilst I too use Google there are needless to say many dodgy sources out there.
Not only does "deprivation of rights" instead of "breach of contract" cause possible confusion with copyright etc. but it sounds to me like deprivation of basic human rights.
So I tried to see what Google would bring up for "deprivation of rights" (without the word "human") and came across thousands upon thousands of US hits for "deprivation of rights under color of law" or similar hits for the same concept. This just causes further confusion as this is NOT what our text is about
may be the first step taken by the party at fault but we have to take this a stage further to arrive at a contractual wrong actionable in French law. The word on its own somehow doesn't convey such a notion.
So we simply have a breach of contract where a company BBB was given "the shoulder" but that is far too informal of course or literally "chucked out" from a billboard as Daryo nicely puts it.
"Exclusion" therefore seems to be on the right track to my mind and I'll probably end up agreeing with this after a while unless someone has something better?
In US, dispossession from the rights of a tenant would most likely be an ouster. It can include a tenant's eviction but is broader, i.e., the arrogated property interest need not be real estate. But the whole construction of the complaint seems a bit awkward to my American eyes.
The breach is nothing to do with lease terms, it's basically about AAA unjustifiably suspending and then cancelling BBB's advertising so the claim is founded principally on breach of contract. Timothy: I cannot see "eviction" working here, the word is almost exclusively used in the domain of landlord and tenant law. The suggestion by ph-b of "dispossession" is clearly along the right lines, but my misgiving here is that we generally use the term to mean dispossesion of a right of ownership or occupation of land rather than a right in a contractual relationship between two trading businesses, which is the case here.
I was typing away about "breach of contract" when mrrafe posted the term If it does concern a property however, how about "illegal eviction"?
ph-b (X)
France
dispossession?
15:05 Aug 19, 2020
A bit more background info would help but thank you for listing the sources you've already looked at. You don't mention Dahl's or F H S Bridge (Council of Europe...). The former says "dispossession" (+ comments) and the latter "dispossession (of a purchaser, etc.) by a person exercising a superior right", which backs philgoddard's definition, which I've only just seen.
I'm not clear who "son" refers to. And what exactly has AAA done? Could this definition fit your context? dépossession d'un droit par le fait d'un tiers possédant un droit antérieur http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-definition/éviction
Not sure why “eviction” won’t work; what about “displacement”?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
exclusion
Explanation: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11002-018-9468-3 Increasingly, national brands have cast people from marginalized groups in advertising. It is important to understand the elements that influence consumers' responses to advertisements featuring groups who have been traditionally excluded from advertising campaigns.
https://hyscore.io/crawler/ In some cases that might be ending in being excluded from advertising campaigns and can result in a monetary loss or can cause a malfunction of a 1st or 3rd party application.
B D Finch France Local time: 13:21 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 369
So if you want to avoid a potentially confusing allusion to leases and real estate (which are pretty much the only contexts where "eviction" is used in EN), try this more general term. You could also say "loss of its rights," but I think "deprivation" keeps the sense of slight violence and also blame/fault that you get from "éviction" -- in other words both words connote that AAA actively did something to deprive BBB of its rights.
"à titre de dommages et intérêts du fait de son éviction" > "as damages and interest arising from the deprivation of its rights"
Eliza Hall United States Local time: 07:21 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 60
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you
Asker: This very much appears to be on the right lines Eliza and "deprivation of contractual rights" seems a logical fit to the French definition of "éviction" which cannot be translated with one word
peer agreement (net): +1
