Somewhat OT: Consulting agreement in foreign language ok?

Do you trust them to pay you? Instituting a legal action across country boundaries is difficult. We did one big job for the Indian government and it took us three years to get paid, which is better than not getting paid at all.

If you are worried about it, you can pay someone to do a certified translation, and notarize it along with the foreign language contract.

You can probably self-certify too.

Actually, I think there's some Califonica law that says if you _negotiate_ a contract in, say, Gujarat, then the contract must be written in that language or it is not valid (yes, in the USofA). Probably doesn't apply to B2B contracts.

I presume Joerg's standard agreement specifies a US jurisdiction and method for dispute resolution.

Yes, absolutely.

It's not about legal action by me. My consulting agreement has two main purposes: IP protection for the client and liability protection for me. So it needs to hold up in a US court of law.

My experience with translation services is very mixed. This sort of agreement would have to be done by someone with legal expertise and then it's big bucks.

That's exactly what I'd like to know. If anyone has a link that could turn the "probably" into "certainly", that would be nice :-)

I've looked but can only find immigration stuff.

Probably goes for rental agreements and such. When we moved to the US and had a more pronounced accent there was sometimes a sentence added that we herewith declare to have fully understood and yada, yada, followed by an extra signature line. No that the accent is much less noticeable it no longer happens.

Have the contract in both languages, with signatures on both?

Charlie

I just saw your photo on a LinkedIn discussion group (audio attenuator) >:-} ...Jim Thompson

:-)

Probably not going to work in this case because apparently their legal department feels uncomfortable with English.

You can certainly attach a notarized statement to the effect that you assert that you have sufficient ability to do the translation and that the translation is true and accurate. That's what a certified translation _is_ (in the US, anyway, in some places the translator has to have actual credentials).

Whether that notarized assertion from an involved party would be acceptable to all parties in all the remotely possible scenarios is what's uncertain, and it is the kind of thing that keeps lawyers in nice late-model cars.

That sounds good. Then I can as well do the notarization if it ever comes to the mat (which it never did in the past).

Yeah, but that would happen no matter what. They always find a hair in the soup.

ure

I seem to remember some contracts in two languages with a note added that in case of a dispute over what the contract says the contract in language X counts, or something similar to that

-Lasse

I am translating the thing right now. Wot a pain.

Thing is, American agreements follow much of the lingo that was popular in the days of King James. Much of this must be preserved if it is to be an almost literal "to the best of my knowledge" translation. So it sounds really funny in the other language. I have to tell them not to take a sip of coffee before reading or it may come back out uncontrollably :-)

How much of the contract is binding on them to pay their @#$% bill and how much is binding on you to not blab, etc.?

My theory on contracts in general is that it is there first so that everyone really knows what the deal is, second so that if someone forgets they can check (or be forcibly reminded), and only last so that you can take them to court.

My one experience with putting a bill out to collection is that even within the US (or at least any of the 49 states vs. someone in the Republic of Texas) that you can get a ruling in your home state, but in order to collect you'll have to get that ruling transferred -- which, according to my collections guy at the time, is almost as hard as pursuing the suit in the first place. _His_ attitude was that his life would be a lot easier if all those clauses ran the other way, and had all the proceedings done in the defendant's home state.

I can't imagine that this situation is any better when the "state" that you're dealing with is sovereign, and has it's own seat at the UN.

When I'm working with an international customer I pretty much figure that any contract that I sign is going to work for the first and second reasons, and that if it gets to the point of needing to go to court I'm screwed anyway.

I don't think the IRS gives a fat rat's ass.

Do you have the usual clause that any problems, etc., must be resolved in your home county, under the laws of the State of California? Are they letting that one stand? If so and if you want the work, pony up some $$ and call your lawyer and ask.

(After all, _you_ run around with the expectation that if someone has a circuit problem they shouldn't fix it themselves, they should call an expert like, well, you, without whining about the $$. So, you have a legal problem, now shouldn't you let your lawyer spend a pleasant hour on it and charge you three times as much as your hourly rate?)

Get it signed in both languages. Make sure the English one is the one used in court.

I saw your comment about the "King James" English. You don't have to continue to use that language. You just have to word it so it is clear and unambiguous. Legalese is about lawyers who don't want to think, they just keep copying the same stuff over and over.

About 5%

But the most important 30%: Liability waiver.

I am not at all worried about that part of the deal.

Yeah, probably not as long as you declare the income. And I always do. But ... one has to be careful that the IRS doesn't turn around and declare me an employee or something. That's reason #4 for those agreements. It clearly spells out that I am not, except now they can't read it because it ain't in English.

I've had some fun in that respect while living in Germany. There, you (used to?) bring your stuff down to the local tax office. "But this is in English, can't accept that!" ... "Well, per European law it's one of the official languages so you have to" ... *GRUMBLE*

A couple years later I had something in Korean and the guy almost blew a gasket :-)

My lawyer will absolutely have no time for this until April-15 because his primary field of work is tax law.

And yeah, their hourly rates can make you head spin. But I am fairly good at this stuff. I set up some other agreement, had to be signed by a big corporation. Went to their legal dept. A guy with a Ph.D. in law, bar exam, and the whole nine yards called. "There's only a few minor things we'd like to add, otherwise looks very good, best if I speak with your attorney real quick" ... "Umm, no attorney was involved, I wrote that up by myself" ... "WHAT?"

I'll try, but it will only work if they understand the English one.

I just translated the thing but will let it sit for a day or two. Thing is, over the years I became so used to this King James stuff that I have a hard time writing agreements in anything else.

Joerg, It would be educational for those of us who might at some time have need for such an agreement, to see your work. Maybe upload a generic or redacted version?

Dave

Not sure about that. Having your original understanding notarized at the date of the contract signing would tend to reassure people that you weren't just trying to squirm out of a tight corner after the fact.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs