the persons deriving title under them respectively [repeated post]
Takashi Miyazawa
same as the previous one.
Does anyone kindly help me with this expression? The full sentence in
which it appears is:
> In these conditions, where the context admits, the 'vendor' and
the 'purchaser' include the persons deriving title under them
respectively.
I have a vague sense that "the persons" here are the ones who are
entitled to the "vendor" and "purchaser" respectively, but I'm sorry
if I made a stupid mistake. I'd appreciate it if you would tell me
its definite translation in Japanese.
Thank you in advance,
Takashi Miyazawa Tokyo Japan
Richard VanHouten
it's saying that, context permitting, the term "vendor" includes any
persons who derive title from the vendor, and the term "purchaser"
includes any persons who derive title from the purchaser.
Alan Siegrist
> > > In these conditions, where the context admits, the 'vendor' and
> > the 'purchaser' include the persons deriving title under them
> > respectively.
>
> I don't know what the definitive translation into Japanese would be, but
> it's saying that, context permitting, the term "vendor" includes any
> persons who derive title from the vendor, and the term "purchaser"
> includes any persons who derive title from the purchaser.
Perhaps I am just having a dense moment, but do you have any idea why one
would use the phrase "derive title" in this context? The only meaning of
"derive title" I know of has to do with the title to land or other property.
This "title" means legal ownership of the land or such.
I guess one can "derive title" to property by inheriting it or by other
methods. But why would land ownership be an issue in regard to a vendor or
purchaser?
But wait! Is this actually a purchase and sale agreement for land or other
property? If so, I think the word "vendor" is out of place. It should be the
"seller" as far as I know.
Can the original poster clarify this point?
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Mark Spahn
> > In these conditions, where the context admits, the 'vendor' and
> the 'purchaser' include the persons deriving title under them
> respectively.
Excuse me, but where did this English sentence come from?
Wouldn't a native English speaker say "*Under* these conditions"?
Does "derive title" mean "obtain ownership (of something that is sold)"?
Does "them" refer to "these conditions"? Why "under" these conditions
at the end of the sentence, but "in" these conditions at the beginning of
the sentence? And how can a "vendor" (= seller) obtain ownership
of something? A seller *relinquishes* ownership of what he sells.
What is the word "respectively" doing in this sentence?
How does its presence change the meaning of the sentence?
>
> I have a vague sense that "the persons" here are the ones who are
> entitled to the "vendor" and "purchaser" respectively, but I'm sorry
> if I made a stupid mistake. I'd appreciate it if you would tell me
> its definite translation in Japanese.
> Thank you in advance,
> Takashi Miyazawa Tokyo Japan
>
What does it mean "to be entitled to a vendor"?
Baffled,
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Dwight Van Winkle
of something?"
The seller named in the contract might transfer the property to
someone else, who might then become the seller with an obligation to
sell the property to the purchaser. A bankruptcy trustee could get
the property and become the seller.
Dwight Van Winkle
翻訳にはなりませんが、簡単な説明をやってみます。
「売主」と「買主」とは、譲渡・相続等により売主または買主から権原を受け継いだ者を含む、と言う意味だと思います。
Ｖｅｎｄｏｒは、特に不動産の売主の呼称として用いられることが多いのです。
Alan Siegrist
> Ｖｅｎｄｏｒは、特に不動産の売主の呼称として用いられることが多いのです。
This is very interesting. I have bought and sold several pieces of real
estate here in California, and I still have most of the documentation. I
looked through the docs and found that invariably "seller" is used instead
of "vendor."
But then I looked up vendor in my copy of Black's and lo and behold, it does
say that "vendor" and "vendee" are often used in the sale of property as you
suggest, while "seller" and "purchaser" are used for the sale of goods.
Oddly enough, I have often seen "vendor" used in the sense of a company
providing goods and services to another, so there seems to be a complete
reversal in usage.
Is this a regional thing? Or is this a change over time?
Dwight Van Winkle
"Buyer" are often used. But there is a reason for the term "vendor" -
the seller may not really have good title.
http://www.answers.com/topic/vendor-and-purchaser
Takashi Miyazawa
On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Dwight Van Winkle wrote:
>
> Repost to this thread:
>
> 翻訳にはなりませんが、簡単な説明をやってみます。
>
> 「売主」と「買主」とは、譲渡・相続等により売主または買主から権
> 原を受け継いだ者を含む、と言う意味だと思います。
>
> Ｖｅｎｄｏｒは、特に不動産の売主の呼称として用いられることが多
> いのです。
>
I see how it is. I was confused at first thinking that the "vendor"
here would mean the supplier of a computer peripherals or something.
I also thought the 'title' would have something to do with a
'certification' or 'license'. But now I understand it. So am I right
in taking the title「権原」as a sort of "corporeal right"?
On Mar 7, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Mark Spahn wrote:
> What does it mean "to be entitled to a vendor"?
Sorry this is a typo and I wanted to mean "to be entitled to be a
vendor".
Takashi Miyazawa
Dwight Van Winkle
>So am I right in taking the title「権原」as a sort of "corporeal right"?
think the answer is probably "no." Land is a corporeal or tangible
thing, and can be the subject of incorporeal legal rights. An idea
might be an incorporeal or intangible thing that can be the subject of
incorporeal legal rights like a copyright or patent.
http://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-4-Incorporeal-things-real.html
Especially footnote 27 and related text.
I think the author is criticizing the idea that the right to
possession of land is a corporeal right, while the right to rents from
land is an incorporeal right. If that is what you are asking, you
may be right, but all this is very abstract and debatable.
If you are translating, 「権原」 should suffice. My Eibeiho Jiten uses 「権
原」 though it also calls it Taitoru in katakana.
If you are studying Anglo-American real property law, I'm sure there
are books or articles in Japanese discussing all these doctrinal
debates.
Dwight Van Winkle
http://www.legal-astray.jp/sbdic_lt/?q=title
Here's a definition of 本権
http://www.hm7.aitai.ne.jp/~niwa/newpage5-89.html
本権〔ほんけん〕
占有を法的に正当ならしめる権利を本権といいます。
所有権・地上権などがその代表で、占有すべき権利ともいいます。
When you said "corporeal rights" were you thinking 「物件」？
I still think 「権原」 is best for "title."
On Mar 8, 9:01 pm, Dwight Van Winkle <dwigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:04 pm, Takashi Miyazawa <he...@tkc.att.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >So am I right in taking the title「権原」as a sort of "corporeal right"?
>
> I'm not sure why you need to know about "corporeal rights," but I
> think the answer is probably "no." Land is a corporeal or tangible
> thing, and can be the subject of incorporeal legal rights. An idea
> might be an incorporeal or intangible thing that can be the subject of
> incorporeal legal rights like a copyright or patent.
>
Dwight Van Winkle
Takashi Miyazawa
>
> I've also seen "title" transferred as 本権 , here:'
>
> http://www.legal-astray.jp/sbdic_lt/?q=title
>
> Here's a definition of 本権
>
> http://www.hm7.aitai.ne.jp/~niwa/newpage5-89.html
>
> 本権〔ほんけん〕
> 占有を法的に正当ならしめる権利を本権といいます。
> 所有権・地上権などがその代表で、占有すべき権利ともいいます。
>
> When you said "corporeal rights" were you thinking 「物件」？
>
> I still think 「権原」 is best for "title."
>
Sorry for not writing you soon.
No, not 「物件」but I was thinking of it as 「不動産所有
権」.
Yes, 「権原」seems to be what I wanted for "title".
Thanks to your comments, now I learned that 「権原」is totally
different from "corporeal rights" or whatsoever.
ご親切にありがとうございました。またお聞きすることがあるかと思い
ますが、
その節はご教示いただければ幸いです。
T. Miyazawa
Dwight Van Winkle
宮沢さんご提示の英語文章にあるｔｉｔｌｅの翻訳として、「不動産所有権」が十分というか、「権原」よりは自然且つ分かりやすいかもしれません。
標準対訳辞書には、"title"は 「本権」の翻訳と「権原」の翻訳として出ています。
これからは、「本権」と「権原」の日本法における意味は何なのか、どの場合にどれがtitle"の正しい翻訳となるのか、どれもが相応しくない場合'も
あるのかどうか、そして大陸法'の所有権概念、英米法のｔｉｔｌｅ概念、日本法の本権・権原概念の共通点と相違点を考える必要があるのか、ということを
勉強したいと思います。
「権原」は正しくてもどうも'直訳に聞こえますが、どうでしょう。