hold the other harmless

20:11 Dec 21, 2020 

Valeu! A minha fonte também diz a mesma coisa:
"Simplifique a tradução de contratos: a expressão “to indemnify and hold harmless”, e suas variações, é redundante e confusa [Garner; Bryan. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, page 436]. Pode-se traduzir simplesmente por indenizar."

20:03 Dec 21, 2020 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/defend-indemnify-hold-harmles...

There are three separate and distinct concepts in this phrase – an obligation to indemnify, a duty to defend, and an obligation to hold harmless. Should these always be used together? Or are there circumstances when only one or two should be used, or used separately? Understanding what each of these concepts mean and how to use them strategically (as a whole or in parts) is critical to ensuring an agreement contains the right risk allocation.

Is indemnity the same as hold harmless?
An indemnification is construed as an affirma- tive right in favor of the indemnitee to be protected against some particular event. An obligation to hold harmless is generally construed as a release of the indemnitee from a particular liability and an assump- tion of the same by the indemnitor.

Hold Harmless

The inherent meaning of “hold harmless” is subject to interpretation. The prevailing interpretation is that “hold harmless” and “indemnify” are synonymous. However, under the minority view, “hold harmless” requires payment of both actual losses and potential liabilities, while “indemnify” protects

19:58 Dec 21, 2020 

E o Marcílio em seu dicionário é claro: NÂO traduza essa expressão como "indenizar e manter indene", só indenizar

19:52 Dec 21, 2020 

Concordo plenamente com o Felipe. Há expressões em que nós "ganhamos" deles, nosso texto é mais compacto