cywang40 wrote:
請注意開版是寫 su...(恕刪)
我講反了.這樓才是對的.
其餘邏輯不變. 不過有趣的是. 主約與附約衝突以附約為主. 表示主約沒有效力. penalty, 履約保證或許都在附約主張的吧
這句話很麻煩
但語句有文義邏輯的誤失
所以推作者非精於法學英文
用Chinglish觀念翻 語意大致如樓上所述
In the event of any conflict between the Subcontract (指分包商合約)document and the Main Contract （指上游主約）document, this Subcontract document shall prevail. ---> 這兩份合約簽約當事人不同 無法互相規範約束 即無意義也無法互相prevail ---> 看一下 你們有問題要在哪國解決 如果是台灣 你可以依照自己意思翻譯 如果是美國 你還是現在弄清事實 寫對話 比較好
In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and the Exhibits, the given order of priority shall govern. ---> 這句話不成句 要看前後文 order => priority => redudant
Here is what I understand below:
stockholm wrote:
In the event of any conflict between the Subcontract document and the Main Contract document, this Subcontract document shall prevail.
=> 這個主合約與副合約有任何衝突的話, 要以副合約為準(主) ...
stockholm wrote:
In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and the Exhibits, the given order of priority shall govern.
=> 這個合約與展場(覽)有任何衝突的話, 以合約內容給的順序(條件)要優先處理 ...
BEYOND IMAGINATION | NO PAINS, NO GAINS | WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND
stockholm wrote:
In the event of any conflict between the Subcontract document and the Main Contract document, this Subcontract document shall prevail.
In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and the Exhibits, the given order of priority shall govern.
...(恕刪)
主合約和附約若產生衝突,以附約為準.
同意書若和展示品產生衝突,以被指定的優先順序為準.
附約是特例,主約是通則,所以附約蓋過主約很正常.
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X