This Agreement Is Made In Both English And Chinese

The first thing the parties, when negotiating with foreign parties, is whether the final contract should be in English, foreign language or both. If the contract is written in more than one language, which one will be official? What will be the control in the event of a conflict? The answer “Why, English, of course!” may be tempting, but it`s not always correct. Complex strategic considerations regarding the choice of the contractual language of a prudent lawyer in a cross-border contract include the consideration of probable claims, the likely jurisdiction for conflict resolution, and the strength to gather and enforce all convictions obtained. Why is this necessary? The contractual law of most nations follows the well-known principle that there must be a meeting of minds to conclude a binding treaty. If not, there is no contract. Each foreign nation has different rules of evidence as to what is allowed in the evidence, if they prove what the parties understood they received for the benefit of the good deal. Many laws allow the use of parol evidence. Thus, the UN Convention on International Goods Contracts allows the courts: which apply it to take into account “all relevant circumstances” of the contract – this would apply to both the initial language contract and the translation (cf. z.B. MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc.

v. Ceramica Nuova D`Agostino, S.p.A., 144 F.3d 1384 (11 cir. 1998)). The use of parol evidence is even more applicable when the translation was signed by both parties and the translation was a subject or scenario that seemed to abstain from the original language. The unfortunate result is that the courts (or arbitration tribunals) must rule on these types of cases, as it is less likely that the parties will be able to resolve their own disputes amicably. Instead, they will all think that their own interpretation of the treaty is feasible and spend far too much money to argue over this interpretation. The entire text of this contract and the resulting documents, including the documents in the appendices, are written in ………………… and English, both versions are considered mandatory, but for legal purposes the text in ………. Interpretation is a priority. What`s wrong with these clauses? Why don`t they solve the problem of language priority? Finally, both clauses reflect the fact that the contract is written in two languages and only one is the mandatory version.

If there is conflict, the first language will predominate. Therefore, there should never be an argument between the parties over the interpretation of treaties. There`s only one contract that counts, isn`t it? Think about how long it usually takes to design and negotiate an English-language trade agreement for your client – and to what extent the parties can argue over the registration or exclusion of a single word or phrase. In the event that two languages are used and signed by a client, negotiations and questions should focus on both contractual formats. When the parties sign a contract and it is considered part of their agreement, they should be aware of it; their ignorance of the foreign language will not be an excuse. Unfortunately, in many situations, lawyers write these types of contracts in English with few thoughts involved in other languages in transactions. The most commonly used languages for multilingual commercial contracts are English, Chinese, Korean, German, Spanish and Russian. Sometimes lawyers think, at the last second, to add a basic language that indicates that English is the “official language” of the contract – while acknowledging and denouncing the fact that the other party is not a native English speaker.

About the Author