[問題] 關於貿易糾紛的翻譯

看板intltrade (國際貿易)作者justsiwon (mini min)時間15年前 (2011/04/28 17:09)推噓0(0推 0噓 0→)

留言0則, 0人參與討論串1/1

這是一篇貿易糾紛的案例(作業@"@) 不過有些地方還有專有名詞真的不太懂希望大家能幫我看一下翻譯部分也請修改謝謝 The German plaintiff produces engines for lawn-mowers. The Italian defendant distributes these engines in Italy according to an exclusive distribution agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded payment for delivered engines. Against this claim, the defendant set off a claim for damages caused by an alleged breach of the distribution agreement owing to plaintiff's refusal to deliver further engines. 德國籍是原告,被告是義大利籍他們的合約是根據exclusive distribution agreement ↑這個我是翻成獨家銷售合約　不知道可不可以這樣翻? 原告要求支付引擎的運費,可是被告反對這個聲明,所以被告發出索賠因為原告拒絕交貨違反獨家銷售合約而造成損失. The appellate court held that the plaintiff could demand payment under article 53 CISG but that a set-off was not possible. The appellate court distinguished between the distribution agreement as a framework contract and the separate sales contracts for the delivery of engines. The separate sales contracts were governed by the CISG. However, the CISG did not cover the distribution agreement,which was governed by the applicable law under conflict-of-laws rules. Under German conflict-of-laws rules, the distribution agreement in this case was governed by Italian law (article 7(2) CISG). 法院主張根據CISG第53條原告可以要求支付貨款,但是set-off是不合理的. the separate sales contracts是以CISG為依據,CISG並沒有涉及到銷售合約銷售合約是以準據法為依據根據德國的conflict-of-laws rules,銷售合約在這個案例裡是以義大利法律為依據想問一下這些的意思 set-off framework contract the separate sales contracts applicable law 準據法(?) conflict-of-laws rules 在wiki查到 In law, a set-off is a statutory defense to the whole or to a portion of a plaintiff's claim 意思是說是一種為了原告索賠而採取的法律防衛措施(?) Similarly, the appellate court held that the set-off was not covered by the CISG since it arose from a distribution agreement and had to be determined by the applicable national law, which, in this case, was German law. However, according to German law, the defendant did not demonstrate that it had sustained damages. The appellate court also held that, under articles 61(1)(b) and 74 CISG, the plaintiff could claim attorney's fees for a reminder that was sent prior to the lawsuit. 同樣地，法院主張在CISG是沒有包含set-off，因為set-off是來自銷售合約並且必須確認是哪個國家的準據法,這個案例是採德國法律.然而根據德國法律,被告沒有證明有持續損害.法院主張在61(1)(b)和CISG74條下,原告可以為了先前的官司索取律師費. Q1. 這個案例是說原告因為被告不支付運費所以不交貨被告因為原告不交貨導致損失所以提出索賠這樣嗎? Q2. 這個訴訟的判決最後是依義大利法律為依據嗎? Q3. 勝訴的一方應該是原告沒錯吧(?) 請幫忙解答感激不盡:D -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.47.240.217