Duty of Care
Tracy Miller
Thanks for your help.
-- Tracy Miller
Mark Spahn
Peter Tuffley
Ray Roman
Makoto Sakamoto
Let me add, with my advance apologies for my butting in on your professional discussion and potential error, that the expression "bona fide management reasons" is frequently used in the sense of 善管義務に拠り, such as the following:
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The regulations also give the Board jurisdiction over certain "reassignments." 5 C.F.R. § 930.205 (2003). Section 930.205 provides that an agency may only "reassign" an administrative law judge "from one administrative law judge position to another administrative law judge position" with prior approval of OPM, for bona fide management reasons, and "in accordance with regular civil service procedures and merit system principles." 5 C.F.R. § 930.205 (2003). The Board determined that this regulation covers only "an 'administrative law judge,' not a hearing office chief administrative law judge" and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction under this regulation. Initial Decision, slip op. at 4.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/cases/clcc.html?court=Fed&navby=case&no=023301
UNQUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I just remembered the term often used by my old superiors at a multinational company.
Regards,
Mak
vince
Would "due care of a prudent manager" be acceptable?
I believe it is a shortened version of: 善良なる管理者の注意をもって
I sometimes see the longer version translated as "with the care of a
good manager"
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
(I do happen to be in the position to review quite a few English
language legal documents written by actual native English speaking
lawyers, though.)
I would be extremely happy if someone were to correct me if the above
options are inappropriate!!
Vince Coleman
Makoto Sakamoto
Vince Coleman wrote:
> Would "due care of a prudent manager" be acceptable?
> options are inappropriate!!
Let me add, with my advance apologies for my butting in on your professional discussion and potential error, that the expression "bona fide management reasons" is frequently used in the sense of 善管義務に拠り, such as the following:
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The regulations also give the Board jurisdiction over certain "reassignments." 5 C.F.R. § 930.205 (2003). Section 930.205 provides that an agency may only "reassign" an administrative law judge "from one administrative law judge position to another administrative law judge position" with prior approval of OPM, for bona fide management reasons, and "in accordance with regular civil service procedures and merit system principles." 5 C.F.R. § 930.205 (2003). The Board determined that this regulation covers only "an 'administrative law judge,' not a hearing office chief administrative law judge" and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction under this regulation. Initial Decision, slip op. at 4.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/cases/clcc.html?court=Fed&navby=case&no=023301
UNQUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I just remembered the term often used by my old superiors at a multinational company.
Regards,
Mak
Jim Lockhart
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:01:20 -0800 (PST)
vince wrote:
> 善管注意義務
>
> Would "due care of a prudent manager" be acceptable?
Dunno. How is "due care of a prudent manager" defined? Does it make sense to
NES legal experts/lawyers?
Fwiw, I think 善良なる means "conscientious" "reasonable and acting with
common sense and in a good-faith manner."
> I believe it is a shortened version of: 善良なる管理者の注意をもって
Yes, that's what it is. Have you checked out
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%A8%E6%84%8F%E7%BE%A9%E5%8B%99 ?
> I sometimes see the longer version translated as "with the care of a
> good manager"
I've seen "with the care/diligence of a conscientious manager" as well.
Like you, I'm a layperson when it comes to law, but it looks to me like
"due diligence" or "reasonable care," defined as "care to the degree
that could be expected of person acting reasonably and in good faith to
the extent that common sense/community standards would dictate."
Richard? Ray?
--Jim Lockhart
山口県山口市宮野下 上恋路 妙見
Miyano, Yamaguchi, JPN
Jim Lockhart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
FYI, the 管理者 in 善管注意義務 is only a manager in the sense that the
person has been entrusted with the care of something, inasmuch as, for
example, a renter is entrusted with the care of the rented property.
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:01:20 -0800 (PST)
> vince wrote:
>
> > 善管注意義務
> >
HTH,
Ray Roman
Makoto Sakamoto
「善管義務」は私も何度か英語に訳したことがありました。何かで見た
"with care of a good manager"と書いたように覚えています。
一方，"due care of a prudent manager"は最近の法令用語集に掲載されていま
すので，一応のauthorizationを得たのではないかと思います。
そもそも「善管義務」は明治期にフランスから法律を輸入したときの造語なので，
英語に相当する語がなくてもおかしくはありません。
フランス法のもとになったローマ法では，bonus pater familias (良い家父長）
というのだそうです。
Bonus pater familias ( Expression juridique )
Latinisme designant le "bon pere de famille". Concept juridique
d'appreciation in abstracto du comportement d'une personne pour savoir
si cette derniere s'est bien ou mal comportee. Le bon pere de famille
sert donc de metre etalon dans l'analyse du comportement en droit civil.
Ainsi, le bon pere de famille est diligent, attentif et s'occupe des
biens qui lui sont confies comme si il s'agissait des siens.
http://www.lexagone.com/dico/dico.php?ref_dico=Bonus%20pater%20familias&lettre=B
（すみません，アクサン類を省いてあります。）
UNQUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
----- Original Message -----From: Ray RomanSent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:41 AMSubject: Re: Duty of Care
vince
Excellent input. Thanks!! I especially liked hearing about the terms
that actually DO have specific legal meanings, and the need to stay
away from using them due to the fact that they would be misleading and
incorrect. Great stuff. And yes, it is important to note that
"manager" here does not mean someone with the job title of "manager"
necessarily, but someone who "manages" property handed to him/her by
one of the contract parties. A very important point. Also, it was
interesting to find out that no exact corresponding concept exists in
Aglo-Am law. That is very interesting.
Makoto Sakamoto
ドイツ法では
「取引上必要な注意」
”mit nötiger Vorsicht”
はっきりしません。日常語として使っている例も多いようです。
unentbehrlich werden, um Ihre Verantwortung von Managern oder von
Analytikern der Risiken zu uebernehmen.
Vorsichtige Verwalter arbeiten mit uns seit 2006-2007, um diese Lage
vorwegzunehmen. Wenn Sie es nicht machten, profitieren Sie von unserem
vorherigen Angebot der Diagnostik und personalisierter Simulation.
http://www.blogg.org/blog-58347.html
これなど，英米法のfiduciary（たとえば会社に忠実義務を負う役員）と通ずる
ところがあるようです。
これは，企業結合の際に，買収する企業が買収される企業の財務や営業状況を事
前に徹底的に審査することで，善管義務とは直接関係がありません。法律概念と
いうよりも実務の用語です。
UNQUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
----- Original Message -----From: vince
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 12:06 PMSubject: Re: Duty of Care
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Dwight Van Winkle
remembered something that might help.
Below is the state of Washington law about duties of the board of
directors of a condominium association. It sets two standards,
depending on whether the "declarant" (establisher, developer) of the
condominium has appointed the directors, or whether the condo unit
purchasers have elected the directors.
There's a higher, "fiduciary," standard if the declarant appointed the
directors, to protect the unit purchasers.
The standard for a board of directors elected by the unit purchasers
is "ordinary and reasonable care."
This sounds like the definition of the Japanese term I just posted,
and this might be a good translation, skipping the word "manager"
altogether.
------------------
RCW 64.34.308 Board of directors and officers.
(1) Except as provided in the declaration, the bylaws, subsection (2)
of this section, or other provisions of this chapter, the board of
directors shall act in all instances on behalf of the association. In
the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board
of directors are required to exercise: (a) If appointed by the
declarant, the care required of fiduciaries of the unit owners; or (b)
if elected by the unit owners, ordinary and reasonable care.
--------------
Dwight Van Winkle
experience in translation. I studied administrative law at Kobe
University in the early 1990s. That doesn't mean I know how to best
translate this term. It is very interesting to read and learn from
everyone's discussions. I hope I can add something.
I found a definition of "bonus pater familias" in English, in this
Encyclopedia of Roman Law
http://books.google.com/books?id=iklePELtR6QC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=Bonus+pater+familias&source=bl&ots=OgVYDFvR7m&sig=mD3Efw_Pey34HCWwplf_MAAfzdg&hl=en&ei=nPOgSd6vAZKWsQOV-vHZCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
(It's at the bottom of this page, page 377, on Google Books)
I also have a definition of 善良なる管理者の注意 from a dictionary published by
the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.
民事上の過失責任の前提となる注意義務の程度を示す概念で、その人の職業や社会的地位等から考えて普通に要求される程度の注意（民四００・六四四等）。
善管注意義務、善管注意ともいう。
Like Ray and Jim said, this sounds a lot like the "reasonable person"
standard, which is also defined by the person's occupation or
position. That doesn't help with translation, i know.
The word "steward" comes to mind, but "care of a good steward" sounds
stilted. The word "entrusted" gets you more toward 信託 and fiduciary
duty.
None of this is an answer1 I don't know and will be
On Feb 21, 5:54 pm, "Makoto Sakamoto" <sakam...@e-mail.jp> wrote:
> On Sun., 22 Feb 2009 01:41 +0900
>
> Ray Roman wrote:
> > Why? There is no direct analog to 善良なる管理者 in Aglo-Am law -- only
> > the "reasonable man" standard as applied to a given profession.
>
> This is quite a convincing notion, which may be supported by the following
> comment passed by a FR/DE/EN/JA translator with a profound background in
> financial field:
>
> QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 「善管義務」は私も何度か英語に訳したことがありました。何かで見た
> "with care of a good manager"と書いたように覚えています。
>
> 一方，"due care of a prudent manager"は最近の法令用語集に掲載されていま
> すので，一応のauthorizationを得たのではないかと思います。
>
> そもそも「善管義務」は明治期にフランスから法律を輸入したときの造語なので，
> 英語に相当する語がなくてもおかしくはありません。
> フランス法のもとになったローマ法では，bonus pater familias (良い家父長）
> というのだそうです。
>
> Bonus pater familias ( Expression juridique )
>
> Latinisme designant le "bon pere de famille". Concept juridique
> d'appreciation in abstracto du comportement d'une personne pour savoir
> si cette derniere s'est bien ou mal comportee. Le bon pere de famille
> sert donc de metre etalon dans l'analyse du comportement en droit civil.
> Ainsi, le bon pere de famille est diligent, attentif et s'occupe des
> biens qui lui sont confies comme si il s'agissait des siens.
>
Sharni Williamson
理者の注意, the reason being that this was used in a lease contract by
Blakemore... although it sounds more than a little Japanese English to
me, with zero hits on Google!
Sharni Williamson
Dwight Van Winkle
I was hoping my 英米法辞典 ｂｙ 田中英夫 would say that "ordinary and reasonable
care" corresponds to the Japanese term in question. It doesn't say
that, and just gives definitions in Japanese. It has definitions for
"ordinary care" and "reasonable care," and "due care," and defines
them all as context-specific. I still don't have an answer, but "due
care" or "ordinary and reasonable care" sounds about right. All
these terms end up being defined in case law.
On Feb 7, 10:38 pm, Ray Roman <japanesele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Due diligence" is a term of art in ENG legalese completely unrelated to
> 善管注意義務 so I would not use it in this context.
>
> "Duty of care" by itself is too broad, since duties of care abound in myriad
> situations.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Mark Spahn <marksp...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Tracy,
> > A University of Washington "Japanese-English Legal Glossary" I have gives
> > 善良の管理者の注意 = diligence of a good manager,
> > and my handwritten jottings also add
> > duty of care, (due) diligence/care of a good/conscientious/prudent manager
> > .
> > along with the Japanese
> > 善良なる管理義務
> > Not exactly your phrase, but close.
> > -- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *To:* hon...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, February 06, 2009 7:43 PM
> > *Subject:* Duty of Care
> > In a 匿名組合契約 contract, I've run across 善管注意義務. Does Duty of Care suffice
> > if not, what am I missing?
>
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> > -- Tracy Miller
>
> Ray Roman J.D.
> Japanese to English legal translation
> japanesele...@gmail.com
Dwight Van Winkle
Blakemore's the man.
Here's an unofficial translation of article 400 of the Civil Code
which my dictionary referred to. It says "due care of a prudent
manager."
http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/CC_2.pdf
(Page 37-38)
Dwight Van Winkle
分別のある人を基準とする法準則 , so "good faith" seems more accurate.
Also, I don't know what Article 644 is about, but Article 400 is about
being a custodian or caretaker of something and taking good care of it
until you deliver it to the owner.
（特定物の引渡しの場合の注意義務）
第400条 債権の目的が特定物の引渡しであるときは、債務者は、その引渡しをするまで、善良な管理者の注意をもって、その物を保存しなければならな
い。
But in article 644, it's about a delegate's duty.
（受任者の注意義務）
第644条 受任者は、委任の本旨に従い、善良な管理者の注意をもって、委任事務を処理する義務を負う。
So caretaker makes less sense, and manager makes more sense, here.
Sorry to think out loud. I still don't have an answer.
Dwight Van Winkle
posted by Mak sounds more like an objective standard, though I know
"bona fide" means "good faith." A "bona fide purchaser" could
subjectively believe in good faith he was getting good title, but be
out of luck because of something that was public record. I also see
that Tanaka translated "bona fide occupational qualification" as 真正な職業用
件（の抗弁）。 "Bona fide" is used a lot in defenses to discrimination
claims, and similarly, the regulation Mak quoted is designed to
prevent the reassignment of an administrative law judge to a case for
an improper reason. "Bona fide" can be subjectively bogus if pretext
is not shown, as long as it is objectively not bogus.
Dwight Van Winkle
against administrative law judges. Same idea, though - you have to
show pretext to defeat a claim of "bona fide." I've tortured this
enough. Sorry!
Makoto Sakamoto
Welcome aboard and many thanks to you for the professional lecture
highlighting the respectable attitude shown by Ray Roman-san and
others with special reference to the legitimacy of translating documents
that are prone to be treated from a legal point of view.
Now I understand that the use of "bona fide management reasons"
or its variations should be limited to clearly non-legal papers or talks.
This should be treated as one of the fundamental rules of professional
conduct of translators.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dwight Van Winkle" <dwig...@fastmail.fm>
To: "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Duty of Care
>
> against administrative law judges. Same idea, though - you have to
> show pretext to defeat a claim of "bona fide." I've tortured this
> enough. Sorry!
>
> On Feb 22, 6:15 pm, Dwight Van Winkle <dwigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> A final thought - "bona fide management reasons" in the regulation
>> posted by Mak sounds more like an objective standard, though I know
>> "bona fide" means "good faith." A "bona fide purchaser" could
>> subjectively believe in good faith he was getting good title, but be
>> out of luck because of something that was public record. I also see
>> that Tanaka translated "bona fide occupational qualification" as 真正な職業用
>> 件（の抗弁）。 "Bona fide" is used a lot in defenses to discrimination
>> claims, and similarly, the regulation Mak quoted is designed to
>> prevent the reassignment of an administrative law judge to a case for
>> an improper reason. "Bona fide" can be subjectively bogus if pretext
>> is not shown, as long as it is objectively not bogus.
<eof>
jknagai
Japanese businesses have historically relied on a principle of
mutual harmony. Unlike American contracts, Japanese contracts have not
historically been water tight always.
The "good manager's care clause" is inserted by every 司法書士 who has
no concept of its international implications. It is vague. What is "善
良?" What is "善良な管理人?" What is "善良な管理人の注意?"
Use the dictionary translation so every reader will know it has come
from the same clause. Let the reader hire a lawyer to review and modify
it to whatever would work in his country.
I have seen an American contract where a similar provision is spelled
out using "reasonable" and defining it so a reader has some idea what is
reasonable.
Joseph Kei Nagai
Dwight Van Winkle さんは書きました:
Dwight Van Winkle
contract negotiation, but what Joseph said makes total sense. So the
best translation is "due care of a prudent manager," the one that pops
up on Google?
Best regards,
Dwight
On Feb 23, 12:19 am, jknagai <jkna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> No answer would be the best answer for translating this clause.
>
> Japanese businesses have historically relied on a principle of
> mutual harmony. Unlike American contracts, Japanese contracts have not
> historically been water tight always.
>
> The "good manager's care clause" is inserted by every 司法書士 who has
> no concept of its international implications. It is vague. What is "善
> 良?" What is "善良な管理人?" What is "善良な管理人の注意?"
>
> Use the dictionary translation so every reader will know it has come
> from the same clause. Let the reader hire a lawyer to review and modify
> it to whatever would work in his country.
>
> I have seen an American contract where a similar provision is spelled
> out using "reasonable" and defining it so a reader has some idea what is
> reasonable.
>
> Joseph Kei Nagai
>
> Dwight Van Winkle さんは書きました:
>
>
>
> > Hello. I just joined this group. I'm a Washington lawyer with some
> > experience in translation. I studied administrative law at Kobe
> > University in the early 1990s. That doesn't mean I know how to best
> > translate this term. It is very interesting to read and learn from
> > everyone's discussions. I hope I can add something.
>
> > I found a definition of "bonus pater familias" in English, in this
> > Encyclopedia of Roman Law
>
jknagai
version you quoted.
But I have to stick to my own approach, that is, to render it as badly
"chokuyakky" and reverse-translatable as possible, for example, as given
in the LAWDAS 法律英語辞典 by 長谷川俊明：
If the original reads 善良な管理者の注意義務, then--
1) duty of the diligence of a good custodian
2) care of the good manager
Joseph Kei Nagai
Dwight Van Winkle さんは書きました:
Jim Lockhart
> > Thank you Joseph and Mak. I have no experience in international
> > contract negotiation, but what Joseph said makes total sense. So the
> > best translation is "due care of a prudent manager," the one that pops
> > up on Google?
The points Joe raised aside (about back-translatability and mention in
LAWDAS 法律英語辞典 by 長谷川俊明), "due care" and "care of a prudent
manager" look as redundant as meaningless to me; use one (_due care_ or
_the care of a prudent manager_), but not both. But I digress...
Face it: Most of these translations are lame attempts at chokuyaku
because someone is either too lazy or unaware of the need to make the
translation understandable, preferable intuitively but if necessary
through supplementary explanation, to English readers. Everyone else is
just following suit. I say leave the following suit to bureaucrats,
window sitters, and other assorted cowards.
I think the closest you can get is "obligation {of/to exercise}
{reasonable/conscientious} care" (in either italics or quotation marks
on first mention*, to show the bounds of an expression representing a
specific concept). When that alone is insufficient, you could easily
define it on first mention* in a parenthetic as "the care expected of a
{reasonable/conscientious} person in the same situation."
_Prudent_ would not be right because prudence is not the benchmark
against which a person's care would or can be measured: reasonableness
is, and the two are not the same. We probably still need to flesh out
whether _conscientious_ could work here, but since _conscientious_
implies _good faith_ and is intuitive, I think it might work (further
opinions, please). _Due_ seems strange because it implies a benchmark
without mentioning it. (_Due diligence_, in contrast and as Ray pointed
out, has a defined and specialized meaning).
* First mention: For those who might be unfamiliar with this practice,
it means setting forth (or expanding) an acronym or abbreviation or
providing a definition for a term the first time it appears in a
document, and when the appear far-separate (say, a chapter later) from
their most recent mention.
HTH,
Jim Lockhart
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Dwight Van Winkle wrote:
> The standard for a board of directors elected by the unit purchasers
> is "ordinary and reasonable care."
>
> This sounds like the definition of the Japanese term I just posted,
> and this might be a good translation, skipping the word "manager"
> altogether.
I've finally worked backwards to this message. This, plus the ones you
wrote the following in, makes me think you've kind of answered your own
questions (and mine, too):
> I was hoping my 英米法辞典 ｂｙ 田中英夫 would say that "ordinary and reasonable
> care" corresponds to the Japanese term in question. It doesn't say
> that, and just gives definitions in Japanese. It has definitions for
> "ordinary care" and "reasonable care," and "due care," and defines
> them all as context-specific. I still don't have an answer, but "due
> care" or "ordinary and reasonable care" sounds about right.
> But then "prudent" sounds like a higher "prudent person rule" 慎重人準則 、思慮
> 分別のある人を基準とする法準則 , so "good faith" seems more accurate.
>
> Also, I don't know what Article 644 is about, but Article 400 is about
> being a custodian or caretaker of something and taking good care of it
> until you deliver it to the owner.
Some people translate this as "care of a good faith/conscientious/(etc)
caretaker, too.
Does this make the waters any muddier? <g>
Btw, I think it's all right to think out loud on this list. It helps the
process along and gives a lot of people more ideas...
Ray Roman
The points Joe raised aside (about back-translatability and mention in
LAWDAS 法律英語辞典 by 長谷川俊明), "due care" and "care of a prudent
manager" look as redundant as meaningless to me; use one (_due care_ or
_the care of a prudent manager_), but not both. But I digress...
Face it: Most of these translations are lame attempts at chokuyaku
because someone is either too lazy or unaware of the need to make the
translation understandable, preferable intuitively but if necessary
through supplementary explanation, to English readers. --
Ray Roman J.D.
Japanese to English legal translation
Mika Jarmusz
「説明責任」はexplanation responsibilityと訳すのが正道である、
なぜならば英語には「説明責任」という概念が存在しないからだ、
と説かれているような、そんな気がしないでもありません。
ドイツ語談義でうやむやになってしまいましたが、
MakさんがＫＴ氏を通じてご紹介下さった梅謙二郎という方の
民法要義の引用にある『善良なる管理者の注意』の英語は
そもそも何なのでしょうか？
法律用語はわかりませんので、大筋だけを解説してみます。
-----------------------
第２９８条 留置権者は善良なる管理者の注意を以て留置物を占有することを要す
(A lien holder should 占有する of the property with the carefulness of a 『善良なる管理者』.)
留置権者は債務者の承諾なくして留置物の使用若くは賃貸を為し又は之を担保に供することを得ず
(a lien holder cannot 使用, 賃貸 or 担保に供する the property.)
但其物の保存に必要なる使用を為す
(however, if such usage is necessary to 保存 the property)
は此限に在らず (then the above does not apply.)
留置権者が前２項の規定に違反したるときは
(If the lien holder violates 前２項の規定, )
債務者は留置権の消滅を請求することを得
(the debtor may request 留置権の消滅.)
本条は留置権者の責任を定めたるものなり。
(本条 defines the responsibility of a lien holder.)
けだし(indeed,)
留置権者は自己の利益のために他人の物を占有する者なるが故に
(a lien holder is a person who 他人の物を占有する for his own benefit)
これを占有するに付いては必ず相当の注意を為すことを要す。
(therefore he must be 相当の注意 in keeping the property.)
しかして(so, then)
その注意は他人の物に関する注意の原則に従い
(such 注意 should be based on the 原則 of 他人の物に関する注意)
善良なる管理者の注意たることを要す（４００）。
(and such 注意 needs to be that of 『善良なる管理者の注意』.)
善良なる管理者とはローマ法にいわゆる良家父
（bonus pater familias）の謂れにして
(『善良なる管理者』 is traced back to the Roman law, i.e., 'bonus pater familias,' and)
善良なる管理者とは注意深き人が自己の財産に付いて為すところの注意なり。
(being 『善良なる管理者』 is to pay 注意 as a 注意深き人が pays upon his own 財産.)
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Jim Lockhart
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:48:38 -0800
Mika Jarmusz wrote:
> 横道にそれて、語源的な観点から気になることがあります。
> 「説明責任」はexplanation responsibilityと訳すのが正道である、
> なぜならば英語には「説明責任」という概念が存在しないからだ、
> と説かれているような、そんな気がしないでもありません。
「説明責任」はもともと、 accountability に相当する造語(訳語？)としておよ
そ10～15年ぐらい前に台頭しましたが、最近は一人歩きしている憾いがあるよう
です。
由来は、accountability の語源・成立をたどって responsibility to give an
accounting [of how funds were used, of developments that led to
something, etc.] ということから「(物事の展開を上位者に）説明する責任」⇒
「説明責任」と成り立ってきました。キャスターの故・筑紫哲也などマスコミが
多用することから広まったと記憶しております。
そのころ日本に不在だったいわゆる「外日」に毛嫌われる向きがあるようです。
HTH,
Mika Jarmusz
「説明責任」は日本固有のものだ、
英語にはその概念が存在しない、というわけではないでしょう？
もともとはaccountability なわけですから。
日本語の中で変化してしまって、accountability とはまったく違ったものになってしまった
可能性もあるかもしれませんが、それでも
「explanation responsibility」なんていう
変な合成語を新たに作り出すわけにはいかないでしょう？
それと同じ風に『善良なる管理者の注意』に相当する英語は
ないのかしら？と思うわけです。
Dwight Van Winkle
it does seem that "bonus pater familias" includes the ideas of
honesty, industry, prudence, and uprightness. So maybe "prudent
manager" is not inaccurate, though it suggests a higher standard.
"Due care of a prudent manager" seems to be a popular translation,
according to the Google results posted by Mr. Sakamato, and I
understood Mr. Nagai to be saying that the conventional translation is
a good starting point for negotiations over what standard to apply.
The Cabinet Legislation Bureau definition I posted yesterday suggests
to me that Japanese courts have put a gloss on this term, and that it
is now seen in less strict and idealistic terms, and is more like the
idea of "ordinary and reasonable care" that is used in the U.S.
Even if the idea is to act as if the property were one's own, bad
stuff happens to one's own property also, and all people are required
to do under these standards of care is try to prevent bad stuff from
happening. Be careful, be diligent, be prudent, be conscientious --
all these are exhortations, but they seem to ask for more than
ordinary and reasonable care. That doesn't necessarily mean a
Japanese court would say that more was required under the Japanese
standard than a U.S. state court would say was required under an
ordinary and reasonable care standard.
Maybe it's best to use "due care of a prudent manager" because it's so
common, but then do as Jim suggests - a footnote explaining that this
idea comes from the Roman law ideal but basically means "the care
{reasonable/conscientious} person in the same situation."
Ray Roman
Maybe it's best to use "due care of a prudent manager" because it's so
common, but then do as Jim suggests - a footnote explaining that this
idea comes from the Roman law ideal but basically means "the care
expected of a
{reasonable/conscientious} person in the same situation."
--
Makoto Sakamoto
> それと同じ風に『善良なる管理者の注意』に相当する英語は
> ないのかしら？と思うわけです。
> ドイツ語談義でうやむやになってしまいましたが、
> MakさんがＫＴ氏を通じてご紹介下さった梅謙二郎という方の
> 民法要義の引用にある『善良なる管理者の注意』の英語は
> そもそも何なのでしょうか？
what he remarked:
> mit der Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschaeftsleiters
> はまさに上記のドイツ語の翻訳です。
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
私にとっては善管義務を英語にどう訳すかということよりも，これがローマ法に
淵源をもつ概念で，今大陸法ではどのような形で伝えられていうことが確認でき
たのが収穫でした。
私のグループにいる方のご主人（ドイツ人弁護士）に次のように教えていただき
ました。
* * * * * * * * *
HGB（Handelsgesetzbuch)に出てくる：
mit der Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen Kaufmanns
mit der Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschaeftsleiters
がそれにあたるそうです。
* * * * * * * * *
「善管義務」はまさに上記のドイツ語の翻訳です。
さらに調べると，Googleでこの英訳が
"with the due diligence of a prudent businessman"となっていました。"due
diligence"というのがまずいですね。おそらくdue diligence が現代的な意味を
もつ前の訳なのでしょう。
UNQUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:40 PM, Ray Roman wrote:
> But who needs such a footnote? Mostly the translator and not the client,
> I'll bet.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Dwight Van Winkle <dwig...@fastmail.fm>wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it's best to use "due care of a prudent manager" because it's so
>> common, but then do as Jim suggests - a footnote explaining that this
>> idea comes from the Roman law ideal but basically means "the care
>> expected of a
>> {reasonable/conscientious} person in the same situation."
>>
business consultant who is constantly working with a number
of lawyers in the US, UK or Singapore has passed the following
comment:
> By the way, Zenkan-chuui-gimu should be "due care and diligence" or simply
> "diligence".
>
> Many Anglo-American lawyers will find "due care of a prudent manager"
> strange. The word "prudent" is an unnecessary modifier. "Due" is a legally
> important word for Anglo-American lawyers but "prudent" is a little too much
> rhetorical. Lawyers want to get rid of such rhetorical words unless they are
> evasive and incompetent.
>
You may also find it noteworthy that the above-mentioned
international consultant has recently sorted out a nasty case
where a translation agency dealing with a Japanese client
who was unable to understand the legitimate significane of a
footnote and insisted on incorporating the translator's
interpretation in the translated text. He won the game and
successfully collected the receivables from the agency.
Regards,
Mak
Jim Lockhart
summed things up pretty nicely in his Mon, 23 Feb 2009 post:
> The Cabinet Legislation Bureau definition I posted yesterday suggests
> to me that Japanese courts have put a gloss on this term, and that it
> is now seen in less strict and idealistic terms, and is more like the
> idea of "ordinary and reasonable care" that is used in the U.S.
The rest of this post is therefore pretty academic...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:29:45 +0900
Makoto Sakamoto wrote:
> * * * * * * * * *
> HGB（Handelsgesetzbuch)に出てくる：
>
> mit der Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen Kaufmanns
> mit der Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschaeftsleiters
>
> がそれにあたるそうです。
> * * * * * * * * *
>
> 「善管義務」はまさに上記のドイツ語の翻訳です。
"Ordentlicher und gewissenhafter Kaufmann/Geschaeftsleiter" is a term I
now recall seeing when I was listening in on a course for people who
were going to be taking the test for their master qualification
(Meisterpruefung)--not a master's degree, but a qualification in a craft
that allowed them to train apprentices and run their own businesses.
I poked around a bit on the Web and found that the full, is "Pflicht zur
Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen und gewissenhaften Kaufmanns/
Geschaeftlieters", which maps directly to 善良なる管理者の注意義務.
Sometime "entsprechende Sorgfalt" (basically, _due_ care/diligence) also
finds its way into the expression.
This makes sense inasmuch as so much of Japanese law is based on the German
and French legal codes of the 19 century, doesn't it?
Fwiw, "ordentlich und gewissenhaft" maps to _careful and conscientious_
in English. _Prudent_ is also a possibility, though I don't like it
because I think is goes beyond the intent of "ordentlich und
gewissenhaft/ 善良なる" in this instance, especially with its moralistic
overtones (as Ray and Dwight have pointed out).
> さらに調べると，Googleでこの英訳が
> "with the due diligence of a prudent businessman"となっていました。"due
> diligence"というのがまずいですね。おそらくdue diligence が現代的な意味を
> もつ前の訳なのでしょう。
But Ray has made a good case against using _due diligence_ because of
some of its other, already established legal meanings in American
law--although I think diligence does map closely to 注意/Sorgfalt.
> On Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:40 PM, Ray Roman wrote:
> > But who needs such a footnote? Mostly the translator and not the client,
> > I'll bet.
I'm not sure I follow Ray's reasoning here. Maybe a lawyer-client,
especially one familiar with Japanese law, wouldn't need the footnote;
but I suspect that many lawyers, not to mention laypersons, would be
glad to know that 善管義務, regardless of the translation used, is the
醤油くさい flavor of "due diligence" or "Sorgfalt eines ordentlichen u.
gewissenhaften Geschaeftsleiters (or whatever)."
> As to the controversial "due diligence," another international
> business consultant who is constantly working with a number
> of lawyers in the US, UK or Singapore has passed the following
> comment:
>
> > By the way, Zenkan-chuui-gimu should be "due care and diligence" or simply
> > "diligence".
This, too, sounds pretty reasonable.
> You may also find it noteworthy that the above-mentioned
> international consultant has recently sorted out a nasty case
> where a translation agency dealing with a Japanese client
> who was unable to understand the legitimate significane of a
> footnote and insisted on incorporating the translator's
> interpretation in the translated text. He won the game and
> successfully collected the receivables from the agency.
I'm not sure I follow all the _who_s, _that_s, and he_s_ here.
You are saying that the translator was able to collect from the agency,
thereby winning the game, right?
Why did the agency refuse to pay the translator until the consultant
got involved? What was the significance of the "Japanese client's ...
insisting on incorporating the translator's interpretation in[to] the
translated text"?
I think the developments in this instance could be interesting to us
all; could you elaborate a little more?
Thanks,
Dwight Van Winkle
有斐閣 法律用語辞典 内閣法制局法令用語研究会編 １９９３年 ＩＳＢＮ４－６４１－０００１０－７
I don't know if this book supports my conclusion as to how that
Japanese courts have interpreted the standard, because I don't know
how Japanese courts have interpreted the standard. But the
dictionary seems authoritative and I have found it very useful in
understanding the meaning of legal terms. There is probably a more
recent edition by now.
"Careful," "conscientious," "good faith" seem more like reasonably
trying to avoid harm.
"Prudent" seems more open to second-guessing someone after something
went wrong.
Is the footnote question mainly whether it is reasonable for the
translator to charge for it?
Jim Lockhart
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Dwight Van Winkle wrote:
> Is the footnote question mainly whether it is reasonable for the
> translator to charge for it?
I charge for footnotes on the premise that they are an essential part of
the translation, just as any other expansion in the translation.
That said, I do not charge for translator's notes to clients/subsequent
editors, for instance, about why we chose a particular rendering, giving
a source for the rendering of a proper noun, or advising of trouble
spots. I encourage translators to, and I myself, add these as embedded
comments.
HTH,
Dwight Van Winkle
Cabinet Secretariat, which is being used for translations of laws and
regulations.
http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/0803dictionary.pdf
This dictionary says "due care of a prudent manager."
I agree that the LAWDAS definition, at least on its face, is more
faithful to the original, but I wonder if we are stuck with this as a
starting point.
Carol Lawson has a very interesting paper that talks about the
Standard Bilingual Dictionary as something that should be augmented.
(page 9 of 13).
http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/anjel/documents/ZJapanR/ZJapanR24/ZJapanR24_16_Lawson.pdf
On Feb 23, 3:47 am, jknagai <jkna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Without checking out Google further, I love the sound of the Google
> version you quoted.
>
> But I have to stick to my own approach, that is, to render it as badly
> "chokuyakky" and reverse-translatable as possible, for example, as given
> in the LAWDAS 法律英語辞典 by 長谷川俊明：
>
> If the original reads 善良な管理者の注意義務, then--
> 2)careof the good manager
> Joseph Kei Nagai
>
> Dwight Van Winkle さんは書きました:
>
>
>
> > Thank you Joseph and Mak. I have no experience in international
> > contract negotiation, but what Joseph said makes total sense. So the
Jim Lockhart
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Dwight Van Winkle wrote:
> I just found about this Standard Bilingual Dictionary published by the
> Cabinet Secretariat, which is being used for translations of laws and
> regulations.
>
> http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/0803dictionary.pdf
>
> This dictionary says "due care of a prudent manager."
Yes, if you'd been reading the other posts in this thread, you'd know
that we already know this.
You'd also have seen the cons for this expression.
The Standard Bilingual Dictionary is just one more point on the graph
and is only authoritative inasmuch as it is a standard. What we're
trying to do here is be more definitive.
--Jim Lockhart @ dead horses start to smell after while
Miyano, Yamaguchi ==> Hachioji, Tokyo, JPN
Dwight Van Winkle
in Japanese. I'll be more careful next time.
I thought it was a new point on the graph and would thus add to the
debate --- not about the best translation, but in reference to
Joseph's point about using a common translation that every reader
would know comes from the same clause. LAWDAS is not that, even if
its translation is more faithful to the Japanese original.
Dwight Van Winkle
graph
and is only authoritative inasmuch as it is a standard. What we're
trying to do here is be more definitive."
answer the original question of how to translate this term? I think
Matt Stanton may be right in what he said last year - see below - that
this is the standard and should be used. That's what I thought Ray
Roman said in this thread - that it would be imprudent not to use this
standard translation.
Carol Lawson's paper says that the editor of the Standard Bilingual
Dictionary accepts emails suggesting changes.
http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/browse_thread/thread/4d5c51e247b88194/f4cad1a725bb390c?lnk=gst&q=%22bilingual+dictionary%22#f4cad1a725bb390c
> Have there ever been "official" translations of Japanese laws?
> --
> Marc Adler
> Austin, TX
Not until quite recently, but now the answer to this question is
probably yes. Although the Cabinet Office Secretariat's translations
are marked as "unofficial", all that really means is that they won't
be referred to by the courts when judgements are being made. Unless
Japan decides to make English an official language, giving the
translations the same legal effect as the originals, these
translations are as official as you're ever going to get. I think
you've got to be quite brave not to use their names, quote from them,
etc. The days of just translating a law any which why you like are
pretty much over, I think.
They've translated dozens of laws now:
http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data2.html
Matt Stanton