| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | Liability - Should I sign this? Thread poster: Christina B.
|
|---|
Christina B. 
Sweden
Local time: 04:19
French to German
+ ...
Hi everybody,
an agency wants me to sign a translators agreement, in the text it says that I shall be liable "for any losses arising resulting from a breach of warranty, including indirect special or consequential losses and loss of profit."
Should I sign this?
Thanks for your advice!
| | | | | My recommendation | May 14, 2015 |
Christina Baier wrote:
Hi everybody,
an agency wants me to sign a translators agreement, in the text it says that I shall be liable "for any losses arising resulting from a breach of warranty, including indirect special or consequential losses and loss of profit."
Should I sign this?
Thanks for your advice!
No. If I sign anything with regard to my translation service, it's forms I have put together myself and then I have the client co-sign them. If the client has concerns about quality or confidentiality, I will make suggestions on how to integrate them into a contract /order form of mine. If they can't agree, then they'll have to find someone else. In this business, it has become increasingly important to protect yourself against fraudulent agencies. And that can't happen "on their terms."
| | | | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:19
Member (2008)
Italian to English
No. Why are you even asking? !!!
[Edited at 2015-05-14 13:47 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Liability limit | May 14, 2015 |
I would not sign any contract with such language. The contracts I do sign generally limit my liability to the amount payable or paid for my services.
By way of example, have a look at this document: http://www.poolepl.com/img/~www.poolepl.com/8367july03.pdf
Also, you can just google for "limitation of liability clause".
| | | | Obi Udeariry
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:19
Member
French to English
+ ...
| | Contract or not, you may still be held liable | May 14, 2015 |
Under civil and other laws and codes in many, if not most jurisdictions, they could hold you liable for breach of contract regardless of what is written in the contract, so they shouldn't even need to stipulate these things.
What I look out for are terms that go beyond simply stipulating such a general liability but try to pre-determine damages, as that should be up to the competent courts.
For the general amusement, here are parts of a contract I recently turned down; ... See more Under civil and other laws and codes in many, if not most jurisdictions, they could hold you liable for breach of contract regardless of what is written in the contract, so they shouldn't even need to stipulate these things.
What I look out for are terms that go beyond simply stipulating such a general liability but try to pre-determine damages, as that should be up to the competent courts.
For the general amusement, here are parts of a contract I recently turned down; probably the most outrageous I've ever seen. Note to Moderator: "AcmeBlah" is a fictional name. The wording has been slightly altered.
3. Contractor agrees that any violation or threatened violation of this Contract will
cause irreparable injury to the Company, entitling Company to obtain injunctive relief in addition to all legal remedies.
It must be for the courts to decide what sort of 'injury', and how much, has been caused.
5. Contractor undertakes not to denigrate the services and the activity of AcmeBlah Ltd. with third
parties and specifically with our Clients.
Freedom of speech curtailed. They could reasonably ban defamation, but this goes too far. If I told a colleague about an unfavourable opinion about them, they could sue.
7. Recipient also agrees that they will not provide pricing directly to any Client, potential
Client, that have been introduced to Contractor by AcmeBlah Ltd. and its subsidiaries, and to
third parties (ie: other translators, reviewers, agencies, etc.).
The first part is okay, although "provide pricing" is a strange wording. But according to a literal interpretation of this, I would be banned from working with anyone else.
The infringement of the provisions set forth in Clauses 5 and 7 herein, shall authorize AcmeBlah
Ltd. to demand the payment of a penalty equal to Euro 30.000,00 in addition to compensation of any
greater damages from Recipient.
What a joke. They must be crazy. Their reply to my polite comments: "this is standard NDA". Wow. They're beyond hope. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:19
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| Let me guess.... | May 14, 2015 |
Is this an American agency?
[Edited at 2015-05-14 14:22 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| No, European | May 14, 2015 |
No, they're based in Western Europe and operate in a handful of European countries and the US. Maybe their American colleagues took care of this garbage, to state it in their version of English. You could be right about that.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 03:19
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Still not for me to sign | May 14, 2015 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote: 7. Recipient also agrees that they will not provide pricing directly to any Client, potential
Client, that have been introduced to Contractor by AcmeBlah Ltd. and its subsidiaries, and to
third parties (ie: other translators, reviewers, agencies, etc.).
The first part is okay, although "provide pricing" is a strange wording. But according to a literal interpretation of this, I would be banned from working with anyone else.
I don't like the first part either. Do we always know who is a subsidiary of an agency client? Do we always know who the end client is that they've "introduced" us to? The answer in both cases is definitely "No". So it has to be "that they have knowingly been introduced to", or similar. I guess with "pricing" they don't want their clients to know that they're paying their translators about a tenth of what the client pays them. In their shoes, I wouldn't want that divulged either .
@ Christina:
They say "any losses arising resulting from a breach of warranty, including indirect special or consequential losses and loss of profit." Do they say exactly what this "warranty" is? Is that a separate document or are you supposed to guess? Just wondering - I wouldn't sign it anyway.
[Edited at 2015-05-14 14:54 GMT]
| | | |
Sheila Wilson wrote: 7. Recipient also agrees that they will not provide pricing directly to any Client, potential
Client, that have been introduced to Contractor by AcmeBlah Ltd. and its subsidiaries, and to
third parties (ie: other translators, reviewers, agencies, etc.).
I don't like the first part either. Do we always know who is a subsidiary of an agency client? Do we always know who the end client is that they've "introduced" us to? The answer in both cases is definitely "No".
Indeed. Although I think it wouldn't stand up in court if they attacked someone for working directly for a client of theirs if the translator had not been informed it was a client of theirs and had no way of knowing. If the agency otherwise behaved reasonably (one quickly finds out), I might compromise on a technical point like that.
However, something else is missing: there is no time limit for that clause, so it bans the translator from working directly for such clients as long as he or she lives, or when a statute of limitation takes effect, whatever comes first. A reasonable agency would limit the effect of that clause.
| | | | Christina B.
Sweden
Local time: 04:19
French to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
to all of you for your advice.
@Vladimir, this link about liability limitation is very usefull, thank you!
| | |
|
|
|
DZiW (X)
Ukraine
English to Russian
+ ...
| take it or leave it | May 14, 2015 |
I don't know why so many deemed professionals are that--lets' call it--naive.
A contract is a mutual agreement where the parties are FREE to add/delete/change its terms/conditions.
Of course, after each amendment the other party is to accept, decline or specify the term, which brings the parties to the mutual benevolence: a win-win deal. Or NOT (so be ready to walk away).
THE RULE OF THUMB: NEVER EVER sign ANYTHING that DOESN'T BRING YOU SOME ... See more I don't know why so many deemed professionals are that--lets' call it--naive.
A contract is a mutual agreement where the parties are FREE to add/delete/change its terms/conditions.
Of course, after each amendment the other party is to accept, decline or specify the term, which brings the parties to the mutual benevolence: a win-win deal. Or NOT (so be ready to walk away).
THE RULE OF THUMB: NEVER EVER sign ANYTHING that DOESN'T BRING YOU SOME BENEFITS, LET ALONE DRAWBACKS and PROBLEMS!
Just delete the articles, lines, and phrases you don't consider relevant or useful, add what you would like to get, specify some possible ambiguities (hard numbers and limits!), and send it for the other party's approval, so they could see what you need and may sign.
Speak up: Negotiation is the key)
Good luck.
[Edited at 2015-05-14 15:53 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Such contracts | May 14, 2015 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote:
However, something else is missing: there is no time limit for that clause, so it bans the translator from working directly for such clients as long as he or she lives, or when a statute of limitation takes effect, whatever comes first. A reasonable agency would limit the effect of that clause.
Such contracts must always be limited in time. It's not only reasonable, it is a requirement (often: 1 year). If not, then it is of no value in court.
As for this
7. Recipient also agrees that they will not provide pricing directly to any Client, potential Client, that have been introduced to Contractor by AcmeBlah Ltd. and its subsidiaries, and to third parties (ie: other translators, reviewers, agencies, etc.).
they want to say that the contractor should not provide information about pricing to other translators working on the same project, or for them.
This is to avoid claims ('he has € xx so I want € xx too')
But it is particularly awkward, and as such it even means that the contractor doesn't have the right to work for other parties.
| | | | | Where do these clauses come from? | May 14, 2015 |
I've always wondered if agencies get a break on their insurance payments if they include clauses like this one in their agreements that transfer liability/responsibility to someone else. Would be interested to hear from someone in the know if this is the case?
[Edited at 2015-05-14 17:17 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Liability - Should I sign this? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
