to exhaust claims
KS
money to satisfy that other party's claims.
The parties then agree that after the money has been paid, the latter will
have no more claims against the former.
In the Polish legalese that would be (literally translating) "the payment
exhausts all and any claims the other party". Would that (meaning the verb
exhaust in this context) be understood by native English speakers or I
should use something else, e.g. "the payment satisfies all and any claims"
or "the payment shall be the only remedy"... or maybe I should just write
"after the paymen has been made the party shall have no more claims
against..."? What would you recommend?
Thank you,
Kamil
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I am not a lawyer.
I believe that in British and Irish law the equivalent wording is that the
payment is made "in full and final settlement" of the claim(s).
Google finds this phrase used in Australia, Canada, South Africa and New
Zealand.
There is an example of the phrase being used as a translation of the
equivalent wording in a Swiss divorce decree (in German) at:
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/german_to_english/law_general/806838-per_saldo_aller_gegenseitigen_anspr%C3%BCche_auseinandergesetzt.html
or http://tinyurl.com/4un23b
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
German term or phrase: per Saldo aller gegenseitigen Ansprüche
auseinandergesetzt
English translation: satisfied in full and final settlement of all
mutual claims
Entered by: Steffen Walter
....
The American wording, for payments, appears to be "in full and final payment".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
tony cooper
I can't write from a legal perspective, but what I see done in the US
is including the phrase "Accepted In full and final payment" added to
the back of the check above the area where the payee will endorse the
check.
The word "claims" bothers me in your version. The debt may be settled
by the payment, but that does not mean that other claims may be made
by either party. Just not claims that this particular debt or
obligation is still open.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tinwhistler
The agreement could be that any and all claims arising from events
occurring on or before the date of the payment and then known to the
parties are fully discharged by the one payment. To put it in AmE on
the back of a check above the space for endorsement, as I as an ex-
lawyer would,
Any and all claims arising from events occurring on or before the date
of this payment and known to the payor and payee at this date are
fully discharged and satisfied by this payment.
[obviously in very fine print or on a very large check]
--
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Don Aitken
<ozzie...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Sep 25, 3:06 am, "KS" <k...@ks.ks> wrote:
>> There are two parties to an agreement. One agrees to pay the other a sum of
>> money to satisfy that other party's claims.
>>
>> The parties then agree that after the money has been paid, the latter will
>> have no more claims against the former.
>>
>> In the Polish legalese that would be (literally translating) "the payment
>> exhausts all and any claims the other party". Would that (meaning the verb
>> exhaust in this context) be understood by native English speakers or I
>> should use something else, e.g. "the payment satisfies all and any claims"
>> or "the payment shall be the only remedy"... or maybe I should just write
>> "after the paymen has been made the party shall have no more claims
>> against..."? What would you recommend?
>>
>The agreement could be that any and all claims arising from events
>occurring on or before the date of the payment and then known to the
>parties are fully discharged by the one payment. To put it in AmE on
>the back of a check above the space for endorsement, as I as an ex-
>lawyer would,
>
>Any and all claims arising from events occurring on or before the date
>of this payment and known to the payor and payee at this date are
>fully discharged and satisfied by this payment.
>[obviously in very fine print or on a very large check]
I don't know about American jurisdictions, but English law is clear
that the use of such a formula does *not* prevent the recipient from
cashing the check/cheque and subsequently contesting any such issue.
Only an *acceptance* of the money on such terms will suffice to bar
such a claim, and cashing the cheque has been held not to be such an
acceptance. What you do is send a letter saying "please acknowledge
that this payment is accepted in full and final settlement", and you
don't send your cheque until you get that acknowledgment.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Evan Kirshenbaum
Typically (and it's not all that typical), in the US, the wording is
printed on the back of the check in the place where the recipient
needs to sign in order to deposit (or cash) the check, the notion
being that the single signature will be taken as both the endorsement
of the check and the legally-binding acceptance of the printed terms.
Whether or not this would stand up in court, I don't know, but I do
know that back when long distance telephone service first became
competitive here, companies (often ones people had never heard of)
would send unsolicited checks with wording on the back that
endorsement constituted permission to switch your long distance
service to them. And I believe that they were held to be legal, at
least to some extent.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This gubblick contains many
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the overall pluggandisp can be
|glorked from context.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | David Moser
Don Aitken
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:25:24 -0700 (PDT), tinwhistler
>> <ozzie...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
I see where the difference is. We don't routinely endorse cheques, so
that technique wouldn't work. The court decisions relate to letters
accompanying a cheque, rather than to something written on the cheque
itself; that the same would apply to that was my assumption. In this
country you only need to endorse a cheque to authorise payment into a
third party's account. I don't think I've ever endorsed a cheque made
out to me by name.
KS
Uzytkownik "tinwhistler" <ozzie...@post.harvard.edu> napisal w wiadomosci
news:e7b6a378-26cb-4e92...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Thank you (All) for your answers.
I've modified your suggestions so as to express what I need to, and here is
the result:
[X and Y substitute the names of the partiesm ZZZ the name of the computer
application software]
1. Any and all X's claims arising from Y's use of the ZZZ software
application within the period from October 1, 2005 to the date of signing
the license agreement are fully discharged and satisfied by this payment.
2. This payment is made in full and final settlement of any and all X's
claims arising from Y's use of the ZZZ software application within the
period from 1 October 2005 to the date of signing the license agreement.
Do those sentences seem OK for the American and the British reader
respectively?
Whould they both be accepted by Americans and Britons alike?
Kamil
Mark Brader
>> Typically (and it's not all that typical), in the US, the wording is
>> printed on the back of the check in the place where the recipient
Don Aitken:
> I see where the difference is. We don't routinely endorse cheques, so
> that technique wouldn't work. ...
And here it's in between. If I go up to a bank teller with a check
to deposit to my account, I'm asked to endorse it. If I do the same
deposit via an ATM, and I don't endorse it, it goes through anyway.
(For larger checks I often do endorse the thing and add "for deposit
to" and my account number, just to be safe.)
What happens in the US if you attempt to deposit an unendorsed check
using an ATM?
--
Mark Brader That would be the opposite of "non idiotic",
Toronto assuming there's some good word for that.
m...@vex.net --Ken Jennings
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>> Typically (and it's not all that typical), in the US, the wording is
>>> printed on the back of the check in the place where the recipient
>>> needs to sign in order to deposit (or cash) the check...
>
> Don Aitken:
>> I see where the difference is. We don't routinely endorse cheques, so
>> that technique wouldn't work. ...
>
> And here it's in between. If I go up to a bank teller with a check
> to deposit to my account, I'm asked to endorse it. If I do the same
> deposit via an ATM, and I don't endorse it, it goes through anyway.
> (For larger checks I often do endorse the thing and add "for deposit
> to" and my account number, just to be safe.)
>
> What happens in the US if you attempt to deposit an unendorsed check
> using an ATM?
I don't know about depositing via an ATM, but I don't sign checks for
deposit -- I merely write the instruction "Deposit to the account of <my
name>" followed by the account number. The same should work using an ATM.
I do endorse (sign) the checks that I cash.
--
Skitt (AmE)
R H Draney
>
>What happens in the US if you attempt to deposit an unendorsed check
>using an ATM?
The first $100 goes into the account, 24 hours pass, then the rest of the check
goes in....
That's to slow down the terrorists....r
--
Little-known fact: About 2% of the famous
quotations credited to "Anonymous" were actually
originated by Jasper D Anonymous, a 14th-century
maker of carriage wheels.
Richard Bollard
wrote:
The way it is done over here is that you fill in a deposit slip. On
that slip, you provide details of the cheque (mainly to facilitate
reconciliation in the bank). The cheque is made out in your name (or
"cash") and your account number is on the deposit slip.
Most cheques are pre-crossed and have "account payee only" on them.
These can not be signed over to anyone else.
I have seen payee endorsement on some cheques (tax refunds, I think)
but have never bothered with it.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.