content

15:37 Mar 22, 2017 

Bonne continuation !

15:32 Mar 22, 2017 

Not really!

If one assumes a typo, then most of the rest of the text is actually fine and correctly worded.

For it to be twisted to mean what you suggest, it would require that tiny part of your sentence to be completely mangled beyond recognition, and it's difficult to see how even the worst non-native speaker could arrive at that — given that the rest of the text is almost perfect.

15:29 Mar 22, 2017 

Forget it! You are both right as demonstrated by further details in the contract. A big thank you to both of you.

15:23 Mar 22, 2017 

Fort improbable. Le paragraphe me semble d'une logique rigoureuse qui évoque un droit de préemption. Faute d'exercer ce droit, l'actionnaire est considéré comme consentant.

15:16 Mar 22, 2017 

I am not sure that there is a typo here. Could it be interpreted as meaning "otherwise, the non-purchased part will be regarded as included in the transfer"?