“X wants to compensate, indemnify the keep et hold harmless (on a full enpendity basis) Y against all costs, expenses and losses that Y incurs as a result of a breach of X`s obligations” We must not confuse the term “Ennify” in this context, neither with the verb “compensation” nor with the name “compensation”. As the American jurist Ken Adams points out on his blog “Adams on Contract Drafting”, “A shall indemnise B” means “A will be liable to B”. That is, A responds to B for something and releases B from any responsibility for that something; in the case of clauses we review regarding costs or damages resulting from their non-compliance or negligence. Among Anglo-Saxon jurists, it is generally permissible to identify the meaning of the two verbs to enpenify and to hold harmless. Even black`s Law Dictionary identifies these terms by treating them as synonymous and defining them as such a hold harmless: a clause like the one we have just seen serves to transfer from one party to another the risk of suffering damage or economic damage in some cases. This transfer of risk is considered correct, since the risk is borne by the party causing the damage as a result of the breach of its obligations or negligence. In general, they sound simple, but when we look at these issues in depth, we have a large number of linguistic and conceptual problems that often raise many problems. One of the most important is the one that stems from an English legal technique widely used in these clauses: indemnity and Hold Harmless. Some translators who strive to faithfully reproduce the meaning of the text and try not to lose the details usually literally translate this doubling as “compensation and exemption from any liability”. Or worse, like “stay compensated and unharmed.” We start in batches.
We offer you different types of English Spanish translators, the best of which combine context-sensitive machine translation and interactive, user-managed translation….