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

Re: nejasna veta

Expand Messages
  • melvyn.geo
    ... I d presume that too. If the interviewer were particularly interested in anything more detailed, I d expect him/her/it to specify. But the issue is clouded
    Message 1 of 39 , Oct 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Gerald Turner" <turner.gerald@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I understand it to mean that the person is the sole tenant of the flat.

      I'd presume that too. If the interviewer were particularly interested
      in anything more detailed, I'd expect him/her/it to specify. But the
      issue is clouded by the foreign elements.

      BR

      M.
    • Hana Jarolímová
      Mockrát dekuji Charliemu a Martinovi za pomoc! H ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 39 of 39 , Jun 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Mockrát dekuji Charliemu a Martinovi za pomoc!
        H

        Charlie Stanford Translations wrote:

        >
        >
        > Sorry to put this in English Hana but I suppose that in English you
        > could break it down as follows:
        >
        > Although on the face of it/at first glance the party which hasn't
        > committed a breach of contract is entitled to treat a contract as
        > terminated instantly if a condition is breached, in some/many cases
        > (because of the rules regarding mitigation) the stipulations with
        > regard to time are not imposed that strictly.
        >
        > That doesn't make it much clearer either really but I think that all
        > it is saying is this:
        > In principle if a contract is breached the other party can terminate
        > immediately.
        > In many cases though some leeway is given as regards time (i.e. if one
        > party breaches the terms of the contract, the other party gives the
        > first party some sort of time/warning to put things right).
        > The reason leeway is given is because of the rules on mitigation.
        >
        > I am guessing a bit and I think that you have every right to be a bit
        > perplexed because the English seems weird - a very convoluted way of
        > formulating it and I can't see why they are using "the innocent party"
        > (you cannot be "innocent" of a breach of contract surely...) and
        > "prima facie" (literally "on the face of it" but only really used in
        > legal English to mean "based on the facts") in the sense they are
        > being used here.
        >
        > Hope that helps
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Hana Jarolímová
        > To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:09 PM
        > Subject: [Czechlist] nejasna veta
        >
        > Ahoj, poradi mi nekdo s druhou polovinou vety - od "the rules as to...."
        >
        > Diky moc
        >
        > Hanka
        >
        > Although prima facie the innocent party is entitled to treat a
        > contract as terminated instantly on a breach of condition, the rules as
        > to mitigation will in some, perhaps many, cases undercut the treatment
        > of stipulations as to time as conditions
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze 7249
        > (20120626) __________
        >
        > Tuto zpravu proveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        >
        > http://www.eset.cz




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.