同等法律效力 and its English equivalent(s)

[Kenny同志]

I was reading a book on translation and I ran into this sentence,

经上述程序对合同所作的修改、补充，将构成本合同的一部分，与本合同具有同等法律效力。

The author translates "具有同等法律效力" as "equally authentic". I was a little suspicious, so I googled the phrase; it turned out the phrase were almost all on websites based in China. This throws me in a doubtful state. Could anyone confirm this usage? Is it right or wrong? I want to know the exact jargon. Thanks a lot.

[semantic nuance]

has the same (legal) effect, that's what I know of.

[fanglu]

Equally authentic is clearly wrong.

I would say "is equally legally valid", rather than "the same" because of the use of 同等 and also because of the subject matter - if you're ammending a contract it wouldn't have the same legal effect, otherwise why would you amend it?

[clc]

具有同等法律效力 = has equal legal validity

[jbradfor]

According to here, what semantic nuance said.

In this context, while I can't quite follow the Chinese, I think it's saying that even if the contract is amended or modified, both versions are still equally legally binding.

[SiMaKe]

Here' my contribution.

"Modifications and additions made to the contract following the above procedures would constitute a part of the contract that would be as legally binding as the contract.

Some other possibilities for the underlined portion:

1. as legally enforceable as

2. have the same legal status as

But, agreeing with fanglu, "Equally authentic" is clearly wrong.

[semantic nuance]

According to here, what semantic nuance said.

I don't get it. What did you mean? The translation I posted earlier popped up when I read the thread.

I would say "is equally legally valid"' date=' rather than "the same" because of the use of 同等 and also because of the subject matter - if you're ammending a contract it wouldn't have the same legal effect, otherwise why would you amend it? [/quote']

To me, 同等 here is the same as 同樣. They both mean 'equal'. Hence, 同等的地位 is the same as 同樣的地位. If the amended part wouldn't have the same legal effect, then why it needs to make such a proclaimation. It won't change its legal effect even it has been amended.

[fanglu]

You're right they both mean equal, but I think there is a difference in emphasis. The difference is the things that are 同ing. 同等 emphasises that it is the 'rank' that is the same, 同样 emphasises that it is the nature that is the same.

In terms of the relevance to the sentence in question, why I think 'the same legal effect' is not as good a translation as 'of equal legal validity' can be shown by example:

Example:

There is a clause in a contract. It originally reads "Party A will deliver the goods within 10 days of receiving payment". It is amended 'in accordance with the above procedures' to read "Party A will deliver the goods within 15 days of receiving payment". When do the goods have to be delivered?

If the amended contract has the same legal effect as the original clause the answer is 10 days.

If the amended contract has the same legal validity as the original contract the answer is 15 days.

[Daan]

Now I'm not a lawyer, but why would you even want to stipulate that? If an amended contract does not supersede the original contract, why amend it? And if it does, then they're no longer of equal legal validity, are they? How can an amended contract be less or more legally valid than the original one?

Oh, the wonders of legalese.

[gato]

I think Daan is right.

The "same legal effect" language is usually used for "counterparts", i.e., separate signature pages, and not for amendments.

See here:

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Rostelecom_%28ROS%29/Agreement_Prepared_Counterparts_Equal_Legal_Effect_Counterpart_Each

12.5 This Agreement is prepared in two counterparts of equal legal effect, one counterpart for each Party.

[semantic nuance]

請解析什麼叫做' 与本合同具有同等法律效力。'? Please explain.

[SiMaKe]

It seems to me the key to understanding this whole sentence is to understand why "following the above procedures" is so important? If these specific procedures are not followed, then what is/are the possible/likely consequence(s)?

For example, let's say this contract has been modified in some way (e.g., a change in terms). If the "above procedures" stipulate that, since the original contract has presumably been signed, that for these changes to "have the same legal effect" as the original, each addition must be initialed by both counter-parties. Not doing so leaves open the issue as to their validity (and, hence their legal status) and, if challenged in court, might not stand as a valid change to the contract.

[Kenny同志]

Thanks everybody for your help. I am terribly sorry for my delayed reply, but the campus’ network was broken four days ago; thank God, it got fixed at last at about 7 p.m. today.

经上述程序对合同所作的修改、补充，将构成本合同的一部分，与本合同具有同等法律效力。

This sentence is faulty and very perplexing. Its ambiguity makes it possible for different interpretations; nonetheless, I don’t want to elaborate on its failings. What the writer (of this sentence) was intended to say, I think, was 合同经上述程序修改、补充后，以修订的版本为法律依据。

[Kenny同志]

Not sure if 'equally authentic' (同等法律效力) originated from the Sino-British Joint Declaration...

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=ilr

p145

[陳德聰]

Interesting! My understanding of the English terms seems to be a bit different from some of the views expressed here 7 years ago. Was the text in your book originally written in English or Chinese?

 

The "both texts being equally authentic" in that quote would imply to me that the English version AND the Chinese version can and must be both 以為準, which would entail that they have the same legal effect, are "equally binding". Perhaps this comes to me from the Canadian equal authenticity issue that comes with English/French parallel laws.

[Kenny同志]

Thanks for sharing your view, 陳德聰.

 

Quote

Interesting! My understanding of the English terms seems to be a bit different from some of the views expressed here 7 years ago. Was the text in your book originally written in English or Chinese?

It was originally written in Chinese. Given that the term also appears in such an important document as the Sino-British Joint Declaration, I think it is very unlikely that the usage is wrong.

[lips]

25 minutes ago, Kenny同志 said:

It was originally written in Chinese

The book, right?  Not the declaration itself, I'd imagine.

[Kenny同志]

Yes, but I cannot find the original text.

[陳德聰]

8 hours ago, Kenny同志 said:

I think it is very unlikely that the usage is wrong

 

I think there are two questions though, aren't there?

 

The first being is "equally authentic" a thing; the answer being yes, it is a legal concept. The second being are 具有同等法律效力 and "equally authentic" equivalent terms; the answer being less clear in my view.

 

I guess I was surprised to see people claiming "equally authentic" to be clearly wrong, without necessarily understanding what "equally authentic" means in a legal contract. But I also think that 具有同等法律效力 is less specific than "equally authentic".

 

In the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the Chinese version ends with:

 

"１９８４年１２月１９日在北京簽訂，共兩份，每份都用中文和英文寫成，兩種文本具有同等效力"

 

I wouldn't expect to see the words "equally authentic" unless there are two languages being used to create a contract. I would only accept it as a translation for 具有同等效力 in that case, but in the case of things like amendments to a contract, I would not expect to see it. In fact I can back-translate your original example sentence into English and it is a very familiar way of phrasing amendments to contracts at the firm where I work, so it looks like a direct translation from English.

 

经上述程序对合同所作的修改、补充，将构成本合同的一部分，与本合同具有同等法律效力。

 

"Any amendments or additions to this contract, made in accordance with the above terms, will constitute a part of this contract, and are equal in force/equally binding (to/as the contract when it was originally signed)."

 

The idea that they would be "equally authentic" to me implies that the amendments and the unamended version are equally true versions of the contract that should both be relied on, but in reality if there are amendments, those amendments should supersede the parts that they amend, not be treated equally, otherwise what's the point of amending the contract?

 

Probably, the "above terms" say that amendments need to be made in writing and with the express permission of both parties, maybe with some kind of execution. That would mean that the amendments could just be "item number 8 is amended to read 'blah blah blah'" with signatures of the parties on the bottom. In that case, you don't have a new version of the original contract, you have the original contract and another piece of paper that contradicts the original contract. I imagine the idea is to say that the new piece of paper, even though it was not part of the original signed contract, must be treated as though it is part of the original signed contract in accordance with the terms set out in the original contract.

 

**** not a lawyer, just work with them on their contracts ****

[RogerGe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_authenticity_rule The equal authenticity rule is a rule of judicial interpretation developed by Canadian courts as a way of interpreting laws which are written in two parallel texts in English and French.