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) / rogue "de"s in a promesse de vente
French term or phrase:de ...
Promesse de vente
"Le PROMETTANT déclare n’avoir jamais été inquiété depuis son acquisition eu égard à ce qui précède avec la Mairie de XXX. Le BENEFICIAIRE ayant reçu toutes explications utiles à ce sujet et déclare en avoir parfaite connaissance et en faire son affaire personnelle. * depuis son acquisition : - d’une demande de permis de construire sous le numéro PC 000000000 concernant une extension, surélévation et modification toiture en date du 16 décembre 2015, - d’une déclaration attestant l’achèvement et de la conformité des travaux en date du 16 septembre 2016, réceptionnée en la mairie de XXX le 8 juin 2015, - d’un certificat de non-conformité concernant l’autorisation PC 000000000 en date du 3 novembre 2015, - d’un permis de construire modificatif n° PC 000000000 délivré par Monsieur Le Maire de la commune de XXX, en date du 16 mars 2018 concernant une extension d’une chambre et salle de bains, modification de toiture, soit pour une surface plancher de 45 m² ; - d’un refus de permis de construire sous le numéro PC 000000000 concernant une démolition du poolhouse, reconstruction du poolhouse en date du 16 décembre 2015,"
I assume son in son acquisition is "of the promisor".
I'm puzzled by these repeated des here. If there was no en before faire son affaire personnelle, this could be read as saying "the promisee takes personal responsibility for X ... and for Y... ". But even then it wouldn't really make much sense: the promesse contains 2018 and 2019 dates, so why would the promisee want to "take responsibility" for things from 2015?
I'm inclined to view this just as bad drafting, in fact probably the outcome of a terrible copy-and-paste job. If so I'm really quite surprised to find this in a promesse
Explanation: I think the problem might be the punctuation of "déclare en avoir parfaite connaissance et en faire son affaire personnelle. * depuis son acquisition : de ..."
Suppose it could be rewritten as:
"déclare en avoir parfaite connaissance et en faire, depuis son acquisition, son affaire personnelle : de ..."
So, as I understand it, the purchaser is declaring that they are fully aware of the documents listed and, once they have acquired the property, they will take full responssibility for any issues arising therefrom. So, if there was a breach of any of those permits that hadn't previously been identified, they would have no recourse to the vendor. For instance, suppose that a neighbour wanted to build up to the boundary of their neighbouring property, but discovered that instead of being a full 3 metres from the boundary, a structure on the purchaser's property that was the subject of one of the permits listed was only 2.80 metres from the boundary and they decided to take legal action about that. In such a case, the purchaser would have no recourse against the vendor.
So, before purchasing, they had better satisfy themself that, even if certificates of compliance had been issued, the conditions set out in the permits had been fully complied with. They might want to measure the distances from property boundaries etc. before completing their purchase.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2020-08-21 15:13:27 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Could it have been written without the aid of a notaire?
I've assumed all along that "depuis son acquisition" must refer to the purchase by the current vendor/promisor. This is a promesse, so the current owner is the promisor. It appears that this text is quite bad copier-coller.
NB it is also possible by the way that "son" in son acquisition translates as "the purchase of the property" (rather than "son" being the possessive adjective of either of the parties). Nothing is clear or convenable for a promesse, that's for sure.
I am going to give a note on delivery, not just with reference to this part of the document, about the fact that the drafting falls short in several places of requisite and reasonable notarial standards...
All the instances of 'de' follow on from 'en avoir parfaite connaissance...' — it's just that the 'en faire son affaire personnelle' gets in the way! This is so typical of sloppy draughting by notaires, who seem to forget that 'avoir connaissance' takes 'de', but 'faire son affaire' does not.
ph-b (X)
France
Tony,
15:44 Aug 21, 2020
Why not? This acquisition may have been left over from a previous version, but that still doesn't explain these d', which don't appear to follow from any previous linked term. And what about the full stop? And where does that * come from? Conversely, this acquisition may come from some text that has disappeared. And the more I read B D's answer, the less I agree with it; it just makes no linguistic sense at all. Anyway, no way of knowing, unless you ask the client. So have a good weekend, everyone!
That's what made me think that maybe this second 'depuis son acquisition' is an error — perhaps a left-over from an edit following the previous occurrence of the same phrase? It is common practice, for example, to say that they « ... n’avoir jamais été inquiété depuis son acquisition... » — "in all the years they've owned it, they've never had any trouble from the Mairie"
ph-b (X)
France
BD,
15:21 Aug 21, 2020
En faire son affaire personnelle depuis son acquisition, as you're suggesting, is not what you read in French deeds. I would understand en faire son affaire personnelle /à partir de/dès/ son acquisition, but depuis refers to something that happened in the past*, whereas acquisition takes place on the date of the deed. See above regarding whose acquisition it is likely to be. *(REM. Depuis ne s'emploie que pour le passé. On réserve à partir de, dès, dorénavant pour le futur. - Le Grand Robert de la langue française)
ph-b (X)
France
Mpoma,
14:53 Aug 21, 2020
A promesse de vente means the property has not been sold yet. So whose acquisition is it? Not the beneficiary's since they haven't acquired the property yet. So how could s-he en faire son affaire personnelle depuis son acquisition? And I'm not going to repeat my earlier point about punctuation. The only possibility I can see is that the author is copying the text of the final deed in the body of the promesse for clarity's sake, but this is unlikely. This text, as shown, is so badly written that the bit you're asking about simply doesn't make any sense and I would avoid attempting any interpretation. I would definitely query this with the client/author. As it stands, your text cannot be translated safely.
Yes, indeed, perfectly logical — though maybe not always to Anglo-Saxon minds! I've been translating these things for 25 years+, and I've obviously been less lucky than you, as I have seen it frequently (provincial notaires...?) My best friend is a notaire, and he's terrifically helpful for unravelling the 'langue de bois de ses confrères'
Personally I've always been struck by how logical, even in ordinary speech, usages of en turn out to be. The classic "en cacher un autre" makes sense, of course: = "un train peut cacher un autre de ces trains/machins/objets pareils". I've done many promesses over the years and I can honestly say that as far as I recall I've never once encountered the sort of phenomenon you describe. Notaries for obvious reasons are pretty careful drafters in my experience.
This usage with a preceding 'en' is very common in FR — the classic one of course being the SNCF sign « Un train peut en cacher un autre »; but you find it a lot, sometimes spuriously, in notaires' texts etc., where they seem to think that a following phrase requiring or implying 'de' requires a preceding 'en'; could this be a relic of 18th century FR usage?
Yes, that is indeed the logic; however, that extra '*depuis son acquisition' then seems curious; perhaps it is just a draughting error (given that the exact-same phrase comes just before it)
to all for taking an interest and giving me the benefit of your insights. It does seem likely that the document is somewhat mangled here.
I agree with BDS that it is more likely to be the Promisee which is being expected to assume responsibility for these various items: if you miss out the two ens in particular. But one superfluous en looks likes carelessness; two may be regarded as not just a "misfortune" but a quite deliberate choice!
As this is a promesse de vente, the sale hasn't yet happened and the permits and certificates referred to were probably in respect of works carried out by the vendor.
I'm inclined to agree with Ph-B here — it seems that the 'promettant' should be the one making these declarations: they haven't had any problems with the list of items since they bought the property — so it looks as if there is text missing at the *
ph-b (X)
France
Re: second sentence
13:40 Aug 21, 2020
I realise that's not what your question is about, but as an alternative to what I suggested in my previous message: Le bénéficiaire, ayant reçu..., déclare...
ph-b (X)
France
Mpoma,
13:26 Aug 21, 2020
These d' are not the only bizarre thing in your text. The first sentence as a whole sounds weird: why avec? Unless ce qui précède had something to do with la mairie, in which case this would be poor drafting indeed. Then, in the second sentence, you can't have et following ayant, rather: Le bénéficiaire a reçu... et déclare... Then, regarding son, your explanation could work, but see also my example further down. And finally, like you, I'm puzzled by these d' as they appear not to follow a term that takes de. In fact, I'm wondering whether something might be missing between en faire son affaire personnelle. and depuis son acquisition :. Note too that the punctuation is not right: personnelle is followed by a full stop, but not by a capital letter. So, for example: ...affaire personnelle. [Le promettant déclare que le bien immobilier a fait l'objet], depuis son acquisition [= l'acquisition du bien par le promettant] : d'....Perhaps not these exact words or not even this idea, but just to explain why I think some text might be missing. Usual apologies for the lack of paragraphs.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
57 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
of ...
Explanation: I think the problem might be the punctuation of "déclare en avoir parfaite connaissance et en faire son affaire personnelle. * depuis son acquisition : de ..."
Suppose it could be rewritten as:
"déclare en avoir parfaite connaissance et en faire, depuis son acquisition, son affaire personnelle : de ..."
So, as I understand it, the purchaser is declaring that they are fully aware of the documents listed and, once they have acquired the property, they will take full responssibility for any issues arising therefrom. So, if there was a breach of any of those permits that hadn't previously been identified, they would have no recourse to the vendor. For instance, suppose that a neighbour wanted to build up to the boundary of their neighbouring property, but discovered that instead of being a full 3 metres from the boundary, a structure on the purchaser's property that was the subject of one of the permits listed was only 2.80 metres from the boundary and they decided to take legal action about that. In such a case, the purchaser would have no recourse against the vendor.
So, before purchasing, they had better satisfy themself that, even if certificates of compliance had been issued, the conditions set out in the permits had been fully complied with. They might want to measure the distances from property boundaries etc. before completing their purchase.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2020-08-21 15:13:27 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Could it have been written without the aid of a notaire?
B D Finch France Local time: 01:26 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 369
Grading comment
thanks
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks. Something along these lines had occurred to me, as mentioned... but I was confused by the two "en"s, both of which seem incompatible with a following "de". If you're right it is terrible drafting.
6 hrs confidence:
with regard to
Explanation: Bad drafting, I agree My attempt to get 'behind' this
AllegroTrans United Kingdom Local time: 00:26 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 527
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.