indépendant de la personnalité

07:07 Jun 23, 2020 

I think Daryo has cracked it.
The problem is that if we put in just "identity", then we have
"[costs] regardless of whether the owner is Joe Doe, Jane Doe or Fred Blogs" (the identity of the owner)
People would read this and wonder why this has been said.
This is why nearly all of the suggestions go for something more than just "identity".
it's like free bus passes. They do not depend SOLELY on the identity of the person but on the fact that the person is over a certain age - their "specific circumstances" as Daryo puts it -.

15:40 Jun 22, 2020 

Daryo's right that this term isn't seen outside of contracts. It's literally the name for a type of contract. Here's the gist:

Most contracts can be assigned. For instance, if you rent an apartment, your lease is with your landlord, but if she sells the building and assigns your lease to the new owner, you don't care. It doesn't matter to you who you write the check to, as long as your rent and the other contract terms stay the same. Those contracts are not intuitu personae, because it doesn't matter who's on the other side as long as the terms stay the same.

But in some contracts it absolutely matters who's involved. If you hire the Rolling Stones to play your birthday party, they can't assign that contract to Arianna Grande and have her show up for your party instead. If you own a priceless artwork and sign a contract to loan it to the Louvre, they can't assign that contract to a nightclub and put your artwork in the nightclub. Those contracts are intuitu personae: you only signed it because of who was on the other side. For you, that person/band/company is irreplaceable: without them, there's no contract.

That's not what this translation is about at all.

15:16 Jun 22, 2020 

You are right about "intuitus personae" in the sens that "frais annuels ... dépendants de la personnalité du propriétaire." are costs linked to who exactly is the owner, to its personna - costs that are / or would be incured by that person / entity, but not necessarily by anybody else.

Only problem is I can't remember ever seeing "intuitus personae" being used for anything else than for a contract being characterised as "intuitus personae", I think that "costs" being characterised as "intuitus personae" would sound really odd, although there is a good logic in it.

02:19 Jun 22, 2020 

but it's not about fancies taking the owner.
See refs.

13:42 Jun 21, 2020 

Very excellent explanation.

13:38 Jun 21, 2020 

This just means the intrinsic costs of running this building, as opposed to any costs that might vary from one owner to the next depending on how each owner wants to run the building. In other words, costs that exist regardless of who the owner is. So what you want here is his translation or "not dependent upon the identity of the owner."

For example: maybe this owner wants it to be a fancy doorman building with 24-hour attendants, but the next owner just wants a live-in building superintendent. The cost of doormen's salaries, uniforms, etc., wouldn't be an intrinsic cost of running the building; it's just the cost of running it the way that particular owner wants to run it.

The reason "personnalité" is included in the FR is to clarify that it doesn't mean costs of things that the owner didn't order/specify/do; if you just said "indépendents du propriétaire," it might sound like you just meant costs that happen by themselves (e.g., property taxes) and not because of anything the owner did (e.g., call a plumber to fix a leak). But many intrinsic costs aren't incurred until the owner does something. It's not about what the owner does but who the owner is.

13:28 Jun 21, 2020 

@Daryo - just happened to me as well, bit of a bug on this site, I feel your pain.

Thanks all for the lively discussion and contributions. I think the legal/moral -v- natural person debate is a bit of a red herring here and that we're more in the realm of the concept of intuitus personae - obviously that's in reference to contracts, but I think it's more along those lines. Expenses that arise 'in consideration of the person' - i.e. if the property was owned by someone else/some other type of company, those expenses would not arise. I'm not an accountant/valuer so I can't say what that might consist of, but I think that's what it's getting at.

12:39 Jun 21, 2020 

and them gremlins in my PC woke up and ate it all in one single blip!

Will try again latter. I'm pretty sure what would make sense in this context (i.e. valuation of a property considered as a source of revenue / value of the building if bough as investment) and "legal personality" doesn't fit.

11:35 Jun 21, 2020 

Well do you accept "identity" as you haven't commented or disagreed with that?

So maybe you think the costs depends on whether its Fred Blogs or Joe Doe or company A or B cos that would be "identity"?

11:21 Jun 21, 2020 

"costs regardless of the legal identity"???

When I try to figure out what that beast could look like, only Escher's drawings spring to my mind ...

07:55 Jun 21, 2020 

Hello

I think that "personnalité" was used as there is also in the mind of the writer "personne légale ou morale"
So based largely on Timothy's suggestion and the agrees, I do think that "legal" has to be used to make things much clearer.

05:18 Jun 21, 2020 

Could they also have in mind "personne morale" v "personne légale" to some extent as well as the character of the owner(s).