rend inopposable - nullifies (French to English translation ...
(KudoZ) French to English translation of rend inopposable: nullifies [Law/Patents]. ... If you don't like that, Í'd say unenforceable. ...
www.proz.com/kudoz/463219 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] La détermination du prix dans la Convention de Vienne , le UCC et ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
dre le contrat inopposable ou «unenforceable» ... contract was treated as an ‘agreement to agree’, and was unenforceable for indefiniteness». ...
www.journal.law.mcgill.ca/abs/vol41/2lecos.pdf - Similar pages

definitions - u - - [ Translate this page ]
unenforceable against a third party (security agreement) inopposable aux tiers RSO 1990, cP10; 9(2). unethical unprofessional, dishonest or unethical ...
www.uottawa.ca/associations/ctdj/lexont/def_u.htm - 194k - Cached - Similar pages

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED OPEN SOURCE LICENSE NOTICE TO USER ... - [ Translate this page ]

Le directeur général représente la société dans ses rapports avec les tiers auxquels toutes décisions limitant ses pouvoirs sont inopposables

"The general manager represents the company in its relations with third parties. Any decisions restricting the general manager's managers shall not be binding on third parties."

In other words, the GM respresents the company and has certain powers in relations with third parties. Any decision by a company body such as the Board of Directors to limit these powers in any way will not affect any contract or undertaking entered into by the GM with said third parties, i.e. they cannot be rendered invalid.

HTH

Company bylaws are not always in perfect agreement with Robert's Rules of Order or the French parliamentary equivalent. The grammatical referent of "auxquels" is "rapports", and so I guess it simply means that the "conseil d'admin" cannot limit the D.G.'s powers to treat with third parties. Then the text goes on to describe ways in which the D.G.'s powers can in effect be specified, if not limited, in cases.

I would guess that "auxquels" can be translated as "with regard to which". The actual translation of "inopposables"? "Not permitted" might be a bit blunt in this situation; "out of order" or "not in order" might be a more diplomatic way of expressing the fact that this D.G. is more powerful than his board of directors - although certain aspects of certain agreements do appear either to invite or to require the authorization of the board, e.g., guarantees and permissions, etc.

Company bylaws are a part of a legal corporation's functioning. They are there to show that business is transacted in an orderly fashion - not to guide a democratic process. Still, they use parliamentary language.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2006-09-19 12:35:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I have to accept Marian G.'s answer as correct because of her background and confidence level (even though I don't use the confidence level like that any more). It makes me feel bad, though, because the fact that all her refs are from litigation of contracts means that the parliamentary language of company bylaws, which was always partially procedural sham, has abandoned that fig-leaf for word meanings that already point toward future litigation. This text could even be construed as forestalling shareholder revolts - something that we are likely to see more of when the recession hits.

Also - bylaws are not cases, or particular cases. The text does not refer to a particular case (and just try Googling "non-invocable").

Finally - I know that company coffee is free, Marc, but it will perforate your duodenum. Just say no!

The CEO represents the company in its relations with third parties and has full power to do so, limitations to these powers set by the board not applying in such relations.

It ain't pretty, but it's the best I can do, Sylvia.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days14 hrs (2006-09-22 07:26:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Note to Jeffrey - not here it isn't. € 0.35 a plasitc cup. And you have to get up and get it yourself.

Hello,

This often brings about a lot of confusion. It's a mult-purpose word in French, but not in English.

I'd like to first say that "opposer" can indeed mean to "object/oppose" in certain contexts.

However, in legal contexts, it tends to have one of the two meanings.

1) opposer un/une + noun = to put forward (an objection of some sort0. E.g. , opposer une démenti = to formally deny (literally, "to put forward a formal objection").

2) opposable (être opposé) = can be held liable

In this case, a third party can never be held liable if any decision is made which would diminish the general manager's power. In other words, third parties are not binded by these potential decisions; that's to say that they cannot be legally challenged in this capacity. So, through the chain of reasoning, "cannot be challenged" could be a possible translation (not preferred).

I hope this helps.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 237 days (2007-05-13 23:20:59 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

If someone is not liable for damage, he or she cannot be "legally challenged" because of it. However, this is not standard legalese. My point is "opposable" does convey the notion of "cannot be challenged" in this context, contrary to what some say on here.

Yes, "unenforceable" is acceptable, but not overly common these days. I would not prefer to express it this way.