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.
Online service agreement relating to a Web application. This is about an agreement with a business introducer. It's just said that XXX, which owns the application/platform, will have to process the introducer's personal data. So there's quite a bit of GDPR-related boilerplate ... then...
" ... L’Apporteur dispose également du droit d’introduire une réclamation auprès de la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés s’il considère que le traitement opéré par XXX constitue une violation de ses données personnelles.
En revanche, l’Apporteur reconnait expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement sauf à résilier le Contrat et le compte de l’Apporteur sur la plateforme, à défaut pour XXX de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet."
I apologise if, to you, the meaning of the latter sentence is a lucid as daylight ... and also makes sense. I think I've got something of a blind spot about it.
... "... should XXX be unable to perform the Contract and also unable to inform it that it has done so" ? Or could it mean "XXX will then be unable to perform ... "? But I still don't get the thing about communicating.
I'm wondering whether this is an elliptical way of expressing something a little less puzzling. Is this really about one party not being able to communicate with another? Or is this a potential drafting error?
l’Apporteur reconnaît expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement [...] à défaut pour XXX de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet" = ... l’Apporteur acknowledges explicitly that they have no right to oppose the processing of their data nor the right to request its deletion [...] as otherwise (i.e. if that acknowledgment were to be missing) XYZ wouldn't be able to perform the contract nor communicate with them ( l’Apporteur) to that end.
if you look at the whole of (A) L’Apporteur dispose également du droit d’introduire une réclamation auprès de la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés s’il considère que le traitement opéré par XYZ constitue une violation de ses données personnelles. (B) En revanche, l’Apporteur reconnait expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement sauf à résilier le Contrat et le compte de l’Apporteur sur la plateforme, à défaut pour XYZ de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet."
the contrast between (A) and (B) is about what l’Apporteur can or can not do about their personal data being used by XYZ
(A) is another example of the law (that would apply anyway) being repeated in the text of the contract - no more than a reminder of the rights of L’Apporteur
(B) is about l’Apporteur explicitly acknowledging that as long there is a contract with XYZ, XYZ will have the right to use the personal data of L’Apporteur to the extent necessary for the execution of the contract "as otherwise it would be impossible for XYZ to execute/perform the contract"
in
l’Apporteur reconnaît expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement sauf à résilier le Contrat et le compte de l’Apporteur sur la plateforme, à défaut pour XXX de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet."
"sauf à résilier le Contrat et le compte de l’Apporteur sur la plateforme"
is an inserted part, just a digression from the main flow; the main clause is:
... l’Apporteur reconnaît expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement [...] à défaut pour XYZ de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet"
so "à défaut" relates to l’Apporteur recognising that they have no right to oppose the processing of their data nor the right to demand their deletion. i.e. if that "express acknowledgment" happened to be missing (faire défaut), XYZ couldn't execute/perform the contract nor communicate with l’Apporteur.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 10 hrs (2020-07-28 21:54:46 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
so it is "failing which / otherwise"
but the element that shouldn't be missing is the "express acknowledgment that ...", the part about cancelling the contract is just an inserted digression
Thanks. My ultimate interpretation of this is closest to the first of yours, here. In fact, not least bearing in mind the context, I can't see how anything else could possibly work. 3 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
I'm afraid not. Daryo's answer certainly is not "the translation" (as deduced, correctly I think, by me) which you can see a few entries back in the discussion... but the guidelines say "choose the answer which is most *helpful*". Your suggested answer does not coincide with my final understanding of the meaning: it is not (as I see things) "in the event of XXX failing to execute the contract", but "in the event of **the user** invoking their GDPR rights, leading to them terminating their contract and cancelling their account". Maybe you could go back and think about the translation as I have expressed it 5 discussion entries back. It is very far from your suggestion.
Just to clarify, what I conclude about this expression is that, structurally, it has two possible meanings: either "failing which, subject implements verb X (positive)" OR... (and I don't know whether this has been documented in grammar tomes anywhere, possibly because it is deemed too self-evident, or more likely because it is too obscure and rare) "in the event of which, subject does NOT implement verb X (negative)", which is the usage here. In other words, it appears that the "negative semantics" attached to défaut can apply either to the preceding clause, or to the following verb, as befits the context.
different, more or less my first suggestion, before I re-analysed the whole sentence. But it's still good enough, as it's anyway just one more reminder of the applicable law - the GDPR does say anyway that data can be held and processed as long and in the way necessary for the performance of the contract - and THAT is what is applicable whatever you put (or not) in the contract.
"However, the Introducer expressly acknowledges that it does not have the right to object to the processing of its data, or the right to delete it, unless the Contract is terminated and the Introducer's account on the platform is cancelled, in which case XXX would be unable to perform the Contract or inform the Introducer thereof."
Thanks to everyone who helped with this.
ph-b (X)
France
Mpoma,
04:40 Jul 29, 2020
In a less formal context, you would have something like À défaut*, X ne pourra ni exécuter le contrat ni communiquer sur ce point** where 1) * À défaut = if the data is deleted (the introducer may not delete the data, but if they do so, i.e. à défaut), X won’t be able to… and to… and 2) **sur ce point = "regarding this", i.e. unable to communicate with the introducer about the fact that X will not be able to… and to… (presumably because deleting the data will include deleting contractual contact details).
Yes, I think I've been guilty of making a mountain out of a taupinière.
Just one lingering thing though: as communiquer is in the infinitive it might go with pouvoir... "in order for XXX to be able to perform the Contract and to be able to communicate with it to that effect" or it might stand on its own: "in order for XXX to be able to perform the Contract and in order to communicate with it to that effect".
In both cases the fact of communicating is conditional... on something.
Either way, once again, I'm just wondering whether that is about the fact that if this "personal data" is deleted this also means that XXX wouldn't, after that, have any contact details for the introducer, so wouldn't be able to contact them. Actually such an explanation is unnecessary for a translation: the English translation can be as uncommitted/vague/unexplained on the point as the French source. I just have an itch to understand what it's about.
Hello My reading is like Tony M's in this discussion:
"Failing that/without which" means if they don't cancel their account, then XXX is able to execute the contract and notifies the client of this You could also use "otherwise":
The client can cancel his account, otherwise, XXX notifies the client that it is proceeding to execute the contract.
No, that's the exact opposite of what I was trying to suggest: if Apporteur fails to refuse, then XXX can continue as originally planned It's all about reading it with the 'sauf à... [mais] à défaut (de l'avoir fait)...'
I think they're just trying to say that execution of the agreement and Apporteur's membership are contingent on their not refusing...
ph-b (X)
France
Mpoma,
14:39 Jul 28, 2020
Sorry, not sure I understand the last bit of your previous post (from "and does not...") PS: OK, I see you've changed it now. So my understanding is that the data may not be deleted because, if this happens, X will not be in a position to perform the contract.
I just re-read your early discussion post: so you believe that it is saying that if the introducer objects ... and/or deletes ... that that must mean the termination of the contract ... but then that XXX can go ahead anyway.
My reading is that it is saying the opposite (!): that in that case XXX can't (in fact won't be able to) perform the contract.
I'd be interested in others could say which of these interpretations (if either) they share.
yes... I think others agree with that: so à défaut means "failing which XXX will not be able to perform... ": in other words the défaut is looking back to the preceding eventuality, and does not relate to a voluntary choice by XXX, i.e. "if" in "if XXX fails to" (<--- this is NOT the meaning).
ph-b (X)
France
GRPD
14:17 Jul 28, 2020
I suspect this is about GRPD, since CNIL gets mentioned. What GRPD says is that in some "legitimate" cases, data can be processed. See recital 47 (etc.). What I understand here (en (très) gros), is that Apporteur may not delete the data if it is processed on the basis of X's legitimate interests, since that would mean X is not in a position to perform the contract. Something like that? EDIT: "...would not be in a position..."
You're right about the presence of de. But I am not clear what this sentence means to you... as you are a native Francophone it would be valuable to know. Are you suggesting the meaning here is "if XXX fails to perform (or to communicate to this effect)"??? Surely this doesn't fit at all, does it? Surely the phrase after à défaut is the consequence of an "if" concerning what the apporteur does or doesn't do?
I don't get why they didn't say " .... et, à défaut, XXX ne pourra exécuter le Contrat ni communiquer à cet effet". It seems like this is the meaning others believe it to have.
Could the communication thing just be to do with the fact that if the personal data is deleted XXX will indeed lack a means of contacting the introducer?
ph-b (X)
France
B D Finch,
13:59 Jul 28, 2020
You're misreading the French: "À défaut, pour X, de...», i.e. "if X fails to". EDIT: "(If the data is deleted), X will not be able to..."
It's "à défaut pour" here, not "à défaut de".// To avoid adding another comment, I'll edit this one. Yes, those commas you inserted would make a difference and clarify things.
ph-b (X)
France
Mpoma,
13:54 Jul 28, 2020
Apologies for 2? 3? edits, but that p tag just isn't working, even though the preview looks fine.
Great, thanks for confirming my purely linguistic interpretation. Is the infinitive not possible is we consider it as being a gerund (= substantive)? As you say, deprecated or not, we do see it a lot, at least in texts other than legal ones.
ph-b (X)
France
Mpoma,
13:48 Jul 28, 2020
L’expression à défaut de signifie « dans le cas d’un manque de », « en l’absence de ». On peut la faire suivre d’un nom de chose, d’un nom de personne ou d’un adverbe, mais non d’un verbe à l’infinitif...https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/clefsfp-srch?lang=fra&srch...
Ignore the ban on infinitives. Indeed, from the same people: Défaut de + infinitif. Pour certains jurilinguistes, la construction défaut de + infinitif est un calque de l’anglais failure to. D’autres jurilinguistes l’acceptent. Défaut de comparaître. Défaut de plaider. https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/clefsfp/...
See also: À/au défaut de (qqc., qqn). En l'absence de. (Quasi-) synon. faute de.Je voulais qu'à défaut de terre consacrée, elle eût au moins un chaste linceul.https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/défaut And again: À DÉFAUT DE : dans le cas d'un manque de… Le Grand Robert de la langue français.
à défaut pour XXX de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet.
à cet effet = "l'effet" est de "pouvoir exécuter le Contrat"
i.e. it is in fact a reference to an immediately preceding element of the sentence, no problems about that;
so in practice it would include anything related to "exécuter le Contrat", and as it's about "communications" it would be "any communications related to the contract"
Yes, that's how I read it: the Apporteur does NOT have the right to oppose the use of their details, except by (sauf à) cancelling the contract and their account... but failing this (i.e. if they don't do so), then XXX can go ahead as planned, but will them they they are doing so.
Thanks for the suggestion... but, and maybe I'm being overly pernickety, à cet effet is a very specific expression, quite specifically referring to an immediately preceding thing, and not just any old thing, but a purpose, an intention.
To me it can't therefore (unless the drafting is defective) just refer to "anything related to the contract".
Reading? I just re-read again twice after your post. Surely the idea is that the apporteur is being told hereby that it must NOT raise an objection to processing of its personal data by XXX... In other words, by my reading, XXX requires that it is able to process these details, and if the introducer says "no, I don't want you processing my personal data" the contract can't be performed.
Surely 'communiquer' simply means that if 'Apporteur' fails to do whatever is necessary to oppose the use of their details, XXX will go ahead and use them, and will notify them that this is the case. You know "As you haven't told us you don't want us to..., we are going ahead and doing so."
"communiquer avec lui" = XXX to "communicate with" lui=l’Apporteur
it's simply about talking to / sending all sort of messages/"communications" - i.e. as long there is a contract there is a presumption that "exchange of messages" / "communications" between the parties about anything related to the contract is ongoing - allowed and necessary.
Interesting. Of course à défaut if taken in isolation would refer to preceding clause, and lead one in this direction. It never even occurred to me that this might be so. Told you I had a blind spot!
This at first seemed to me to be quite bad grammar, which would make it different to the rest of the contract, and the other contracts (there are several). But I can see how a construction of this kind could fly...
If this is the meaning I still don't really understand about the communication angle: if the objection and/or request for deletion is not made then XXX will be fine about communicating ... communicating about what? And why would raising an objection to processing hinder this? ... hmm.
Oh, maybe "failing which XXX shall be able to perform and let the introducer know that it can perform", or words to that effect ... ? The end of that clause would still be rather puzzling and redundant-seeming in that case, for me.
En revanche, l’Apporteur reconnaît expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement sauf à résilier le Contrat et le compte de l’Apporteur sur la plateforme, à défaut pour XXX de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet."
I would interpret it as
En revanche, l’Apporteur reconnaît expressément qu’il ne dispose pas du droit de s’opposer au traitement de ses données et du droit à leur effacement sauf à résilier le Contrat et le compte de l’Apporteur sur la plateforme,
à défaut (= au cas où l’Apporteur n'a pas encore résilié le Contrat et son compte sur la plateforme = la résiliation du contrat "fait défaut" / n'est pas encore intervenue)
(dans ce cas-là) pour XXX de pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec lui à cet effet."
= tant que l’Apporteur n'a pas encore résilié le Contrat et son compte sur la plateforme, XXX a le droit de traiter les données de l’Apporteur dans la mesure où cela est nécessaire pour "pouvoir exécuter le Contrat et communiquer avec l’Apporteur à cet effet"
Can't see what else would make much sense.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
35 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
without prejudice to; notwithstanding
Explanation: In using lateral thinking Cockney finking/ Irish tinking to construe this document - rather than interpreting a piece of legislation - pls. note that the phrase would go on with a persent participle of being able or allowed to: pace PhB a 'gerundive'.
Also note carefully AMM's comment on the German 'equivalent' in the 2nd. web ref.
Adrian MM. Austria Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 86
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks. For me "notwithstanding" is synonymous with "despite". Is this how you mean it here?
So "The Introducer acknowledges that it is not entitled to object to processing of its data or to delete it, unless the Contract and the account are terminated, ***despite*** XXX not being able to perform the Contract and communicate to this effect"?
I don't see how that can be the meaning: if XXX is not able to perform, independently of what the introducer does, all bets were off anyway.
peer agreement (net): +1
