Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] HELP legal, eng-cz agreement

Expand Messages
  • Michael Trittipo
    ... I don t see that anyone has answered this part. If it s not too late, to help, I parse it as: . . . [an amount] such that after deduction of any charges
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Helena Subrtova wrote:
      > Dobry den,
      > z nasledujiciho textu mi neni jasna cast "required to pay or withold in
      > respect to or calculated with reference to such amount, the remainder
      > actually received by, due"
      >
      > All payments . . . shall be . . .
      > . . . in an amount[***] . . .
      > . . . such that after deduction of any [charges] . . .
      > . . . which . . . any . . . party
      > shall be required to pay or withold in respect to or calculated
      > with reference to such amount[***], the remainder . . .
      > . . . payable to X shall be the amou[n]ts specified in this Agreement.

      I don't see that anyone has answered this part. If
      it's not too late, to help, I parse it as:

      ". . . [an amount] such that after deduction of any charges
      which any of these people are required
      to pay or withold (i.e., to hold
      in reserve for later payment to the gov't[*n1])
      in respect to or calculated
      with reference to such amount [*n2]
      the remainder [i.e., amount minus charges = remainder]
      actually paid will be the agreed amount."

      *** The antecedent for "such amount" is "in an amount"
      n1: the U.S. has a witholding system: so the charges
      are ones _either_ paid or witheld for later payment
      n2: "in respect to or calculated with reference to" is
      arguably redundant (actually, there's law about the
      difference between taxes "on" certain amounts, and
      taxes "measured by" or "calculated on" amounts -- but
      for present purposes, ignore it); you can probably
      treat it as being simply "s ohledem"

      In short, the deal is: (1) we've agreed to a certain
      amount that X should get, net after everything. (2) We
      know that there will be taxes or other charges on
      anything paid to X. (3) We can do the math on how
      much the tax and charges will be. (4) Any math that
      we can do forward, we can do backwards. (5)
      Therefore, the *beginning* amount has to be more than
      the *agreed NET* amount, by just exactly as much as
      will work out in the math.

      For example, if for every $100 X gets, the tax laws say
      X must pay or withold 20% ($20), then we know X would
      only get $80 net. In order to make sure that X *NETS*
      the agreed $100, the amount to use at the beginning has
      to be $125 -- because that way, when 20% is witheld
      (20% of $125 being $25), the remainder (the net) will
      be $100, the agreed amount.

      As for the other questions, I take the first one
      (authorizations) to mean that if licensee's government
      has rules that would keep licensee from paying as
      agreed, then licensee should do whatever is possible to
      get the government to let licensee pay (get whatever
      authorization, in whatever form is necessary: a permit,
      a waiver, a declaration that a certain exception
      applies, whatever).

      Your last paragraph was marred by the author's attempt
      to do too much: it would be to effect (make) filings,
      and to obtain approvals.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.