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. What can you do with a multilingual contract in legal disputes in the United States? All foreign language documents submitted in federal court proceedings must be translated into English. The federal rule of evidence 604 provides that « the interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to expert qualification. » The rule has been extended to translators and, therefore, they can qualify as experts under the federal rule of evidence 702. In many cases, the parties offer different translators with opinions asserting that the reliability of another`s translation is wrong. 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 reason is simple: if you expect to sue in a Chinese (or foreign) court, the staff of that court will not speak English. You won`t read English. Even if they read English, the Tribunal`s procedural regulations will require that the documents be translated into the national language. If you have already found that the party with whom you enter into a contract has no fortune outside of his own country and that discharge in the district court is faster than an arbitration procedure, why would you want an English-language contract to salt these foreign proceedings? The only language for the foreign court is his, and contracts that are in several languages will confuse the subject. A single contract in a single language (the jurisdiction that sees and imposes it every day) will make the procedure faster, cheaper and simpler – three words that make the customer happy. Poor translations lead to a loss of precise language. In many cases, a solo or small lawyer tries to save costs for the client by using a non-lawyer to translate contracts. There are stories of people using secretaries to translate contracts (« She speaks Spanish, no matter what dialect ») or use computer programs. Even obtaining flat-rate translations of translation services can be problematic if they do not explain the range of potential translations that could result from a given legal formulation.