This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
interligne interne
mailles de calcul

Glossary entry

French term or phrase:

le contract fait la loi entre elles (les parties au contrat)

English translation:

the contract is the law between them (the parties to the contract)

Added to glossary by Daryo
Jul 3, 2020 11:19
3 yrs ago
43 viewers *
French term

faire la loi entre elles

French to English Law/Patents Law: Contract(s)
Bog standard contract (for provision of services).

"Chacune des parties déclare avoir négocié de bonne foi les conditions de ces accords et avoir reçu toutes les informations nécessaires à l'expression d'un consentement parfaitement éclairé.
C'est dans ces conditions que les parties ont décidé de régler leurs relations selon le présent contrat qui fera la loi entre elles."

No sign of this expression in the archives, or Bridge, or anywhere. I presume it means "shall be binding on (them both)". But maybe I presume too much.
Proposed translations (English)
5 +3 [...] which will be the law between them (/ the parties to the contract)
4 +2 (shall) form the legal basis existing between them/shall be legally binding upon them
3 -1 to set the rules between them
References
in the glossaries under 'font la loi' - as binding between the parties
Pacta sunt servanda (my Latin teacher would be proud of me)
Change log

Jul 21, 2020 13:07: Daryo Created KOG entry

Discussion

Cyril Tollari Jul 11, 2020:
@AllegroTrans The article is from 1804. "faire la loi" is an usual phrase in a French contract. Seems to be the equivalent to "constitute the law".

"l'expression d'un consentement parfaitement éclairé." sounds like a phrase from the same period.

Do we know what country this is from?
AllegroTrans Jul 11, 2020:
@ Cyril That's all well and good, but it's from the Civil Code. Here we are dealing with words in a contract.
Cyril Tollari Jul 10, 2020:
Article 1786, French Civil Code
Les entrepreneurs et directeurs de voitures et roulages publics, les maîtres de barques et navires, sont en outre assujettis à des règlements particuliers, qui font la loi entre eux et les autres citoyens.
Carriers and directors of public carriages and haulage, masters of boats and ships, are also subject to special regulations, which constitute the law between them and other citizens.
Chris Pr Jul 8, 2020:
"..when people didn't try to ram their views.." ...funny you should mention that point, ST...
SafeTex Jul 7, 2020:
@ AllegroTrans Hello AllegroTrans

You've done all you can mate. You withdrew your agree and made it a "neutral" and you are right to say that there are two ways of dealing with this.

But if you were hoping to find some common ground and for a bit of reciprocity (the withdrawal of disagrees to your valid answer), forget it.

When the same question was asked in 2009, someone suggested "shall be binding between the parties" and it got 6 agrees and no disagrees or neutrals, and was of course accepted by the asker.

But that was in the good old days when people didn't try to ram their views, Americanisms and Legalese down everyone's throats :)
Eliza Hall Jul 7, 2020:
PS @ AllegroTrans You wrote that "shall be the law between the parties" "has the defect of not being 100% correct, since the 'law between them' consists of a whole gammut of rights, responsibilities and remedies contained in the civil law of the country concerned."

I would disagree because the whole gamut of rights, responsibilities etc. that you mention is not the law between the parties -- it's the law for ALL parties in that jurisdiction.

In addition to that universally applicable law, which sets forth rules, remedies, etc., for everyone, the contract provides a set of rules, remedies, etc., that operate only between the parties to the contract.

The term "the law between the parties" isn't intended to refer to all applicable law. It just refers to the set of additional rules, remedies, etc., on top of the law in general, that a contract imposes on the parties to it.
Eliza Hall Jul 6, 2020:
AT's "problem" I think AllegroTrans' "we have a problem" just means that in his view, it doesn't make sense to put a legal maxim into a contract, so its presence would not make sense to a lawyer. The words translated make sense -- we understand "shall be the law between them"; it's a maxim we learned in law school, after all -- but their presence in the contract doesn't, per AT.

I have no problem with this maxim being in a contract. To me, it's just redundant (because all contracts are "the law between the parties" with respect to the subject of the contract, so it goes without saying).

But then it also goes without saying that a contract is binding between the parties, and yet you still sometimes see "this contract is binding between the parties" language in contracts. Some lawyers just like being redundant and spelling out things that don't need to be spelled out.

Its presence certainly wouldn't be problematic. It wouldn't make anything in the contract unclear or ambiguous. It would change nothing about the contract's legal effect or my interpretation of it. It's just there, redundantly, but that's fine -- you get used to redundancy when you read a lot of contracts.
AllegroTrans Jul 6, 2020:
Daryo you have misunderstood me Your translation per se makes perfect sense and I have said as much. Writing it into a contract as a maxim would NOT make sense to an English (or I believe, US) lawyer. That's what this whole debate has been about, two alternative ways of looking at it.
Daryo Jul 6, 2020:
No, we don't ... Regarding

"If we take the view that a legal translation should make sense to a lawyer in the target country then we have a problem."

well, I don't see any problem of that kind.

One would presume that ANYTHING that was said by the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to make sense to any lawyer in US, and also in UK, or in this case anywhere as it's a basic fact about contracts.

the whole of

"Chacune des parties déclare avoir négocié de bonne foi les conditions de ces accords et avoir reçu toutes les informations nécessaires à l'expression d'un consentement parfaitement éclairé.
C'est dans ces conditions que les parties ont décidé de régler leurs relations selon le présent contrat qui fera la loi entre elles."

sounds like no more than a reminder about basics of contract law - like a contract resulting from "un consentement parfaitement éclairé" which is as much "blindingly obvious/presumed /implicit" to ANY contract as the bit about "le présent contrat .. fera la loi entre elles"

You could see it as the usual (usual in France) "lu et approuvé", only on steroids - closing in advance all "easy excuses" to weasel out of the contract.
AllegroTrans Jul 5, 2020:
...continued So an attempt might be something like "...shall express the legal relatonship existing between them". Although this makes sense it still has the defect of only being partly true since just as with France, GB has a whole raft of complex contract legislation and caselaw.
So to the question: which is correct? we can give the beloved answer of every lawyer, doctor (and translator?): it depends....
AllegroTrans Jul 5, 2020:
I'm going to sum up I don't really have the right to do so as I was one of the protagonists, but I have changed my response to Daryo to 'neutral' and I am claiming privilege of age since I reckon I'm the oldest contributor to this question (hehe).
There are 2 distinct ways of looking at this and I don't see either of them as wrong. I think the choice is a translator-centric choice and has little to do with law, albeit that is the starting point.
1." ...which will/shall be the law between them" is a perfectly correct translation, whether or not English language lawyers write maxims into contracts. The simple fact is that this particular contract writer did just that. The phrase has the defect of not being 100% correct, since the 'law between them' consists of a whole gammut of rights, responsibilities and remedies contained in the civil law of the country concerned. So be it.
2. If we take the view that a legal translation should make sense to a lawyer in the target country then we have a problem. I have searched without success for a contract containing this maxim. So the solution here is to try to second guess what "... which/shall be the law between them" means & put this into sensible legal English
ph-b (X) Jul 5, 2020:
Eliza, Please read again: "I neither agree nor disagree with either Daryo or AllegroTrans" In fact, I was about to agree with Daryo (see my reference post below), but AllegroTrans posted his doubts right at that moment. I'll be happy to agree with Daryo if I am shown a UK contract with her/his suggestion in it. Also, please try to refrain from giving this dicussion a personal touch by reminding us that you are a practising lawyer or writing things like: "When you see Adrian and I agreeing on a legal term, and SafeTex piping up... well, when does that ever happen here? We never agree!" or "Isn't it a little odd that you take AT's word without any evidence, but reject my word", which I do not, by the way. As I said, if any one can show that AllegroTrans is wrong and that Daryo is right...
Eliza Hall Jul 5, 2020:
@PhB You wrote: "But AllegroTrans claims this cannot be used in a contract"

What evidence has AT provided of that statement?

None but his own opinion, correct?

I'm curious why you think I need more evidence, but he doesn't need any.

To recap: AllegroTrans has worked in the legal field in England. Adrian, who was a lawyer in England, agrees with Daryo's translation but noted in his "Agree" comment that this term, though used by at least one international scholar, is more US English than UK. I am a US lawyer and have said, in addition to agreeing with Adrian that it's the proper translation, that it could be used in a contract.

Isn't it a little odd that you take AT's word without any evidence, but reject my word and a bit of actual evidence, even though I practice law in the country where this term is the most prevalent?

Most contracts don't specifically say that they're binding on the parties, and logically they shouldn't need to say that, but sometimes they do. The same is true of this phrase: it's a basic legal concept that is true of all contracts, so its presence in a contract is redundant -- but you know how lawyers love redundancy :)
ph-b (X) Jul 5, 2020:
Eliza, Thanks for the link. The first three docs are meant to be used in the Philippines, the fourth in Panama, the next two (the ILO docs) refer to the African market and the next two are laws (not contracts) from Puerto Rico which create a type of contract which they describe as the law between the parties. No one here denies that Daryo's suggestion is a valid legal turn of phrase and it has been shown that it can be used in court decisions, laws, academic articles, etc. But AllegroTrans claims this cannot be used in a contract and no one has been able to prove the contrary yet. Note that Daryo her/himself says: "although you wouldn't put it [his/her suggestion] in a contract, " (see her/his comment to my reference entry). One could not be clearer. It seems to me that we are once again in danger of forgetting that translation is not just about meaning, it's also about style, terminology and register. I neither agree nor disagree with either Daryo or AllegroTrans, I would just like to see some solid evidence that Daryo's answer can be used in a (presumably UK since Mpoma is in the UK) translation. Usual apologies for the lack of paragraphs.
Eliza Hall Jul 5, 2020:
Agree w/Daryo: standard legal phrase It's just a thing we say in EN legalese. Contracts are the law between the parties. A completely standard turn of phrase, so there's no reason to go looking farther afield for some other way of translating the exact same FR phrase.

When you see Adrian and I agreeing on a legal term, and SafeTex piping up to acknowledge that his initial google search was too narrow and Daryo's translation does indeed get a ton of hits... well, when does that ever happen here? We never agree! So when even we agree, it's got to make you think there might be something to the translation we're agreeing on. :)

As for whether this phrase would be used in a contract: YES. Here's a google search you can run to bring up contracts with this phrase in them:

sample contract language "shall be the law between the parties"
Daryo Jul 5, 2020:
It's not "my" formulation it's one of the first things you learn when you study contract law.
SafeTex Jul 4, 2020:
@ Daryo Hello
I've noted this thing about how I "over-limited" the Google search which was NOT intentional and see that your formulation indeed gets far more hits than I imagined.
Daryo Jul 3, 2020:
@ AllegroTrans I found much better samples in the meantime, but that site has some sort of copy protection.

I already found a pretty good /relevant sample from the Supreme Court of the United States - one would assume that their legal English is up to scratch?

There is this very good site https://www.casemine.com real-life cases aplenty, perfect to see terms as used in real context, only they have some kind of copy-protection that is a right pain in the neck (very helpful for "disseminating knowledge" ..)

As for "we would never put that in a contract" .... please note this part of my answer:

"This a basic of contract law and is always true / implicitly present in ANY contract / usually omitted as "being blindingly obvious".
Why they felt the need to state it explicitly is anyone's guess."

Putting in a contract "le présent contrat ... fera la loi entre elles" is stating the obvious (zero additional information / no change in entropy) but if it's there it's got to be translated, accurately.
AllegroTrans Jul 3, 2020:
@ Daryo It seems you are also saying that the phrase "whatever an arbitrator says shall be the law between them" found in an obscure King's Bench case and uttered not by the Court but by a mere party, supports your answer. Tell that to the Lord Chief Justice, or better still the Premier Président of the Cour de Cassation...
AllegroTrans Jul 3, 2020:
[...] which will be the law between them... is a layman's (or even a law student's) way of looking at this and in a very general way, it's true. Having said that, we would never see these words written into a contract. We may see a variation such as "the contract shall form the legal relationship between them" or something similar ....
SafeTex Jul 3, 2020:
@ Daryo Hello Daryo :)

Only yesterday, you said it to me it was not a great idea to cite French (variant French) usage for a question about a Swiss French document and today you are using a Pilipino document as a reference for "unimpeachable" English ?!?!?!

Or have I misunderstood you?
AllegroTrans Jul 3, 2020:
I also Agree with mpoma's suggested translation
ph-b (X) Jul 3, 2020:
Mpoma, Agree with philgoddard (and you). And forget what we were all taught about using dictionaries (verbs in the infinitive, singular form of nouns rather than their plural, etc.) and g**gl* fait la loi entre les parties and you will get many reliable and relevant examples. As for the archives, there is actually a Kudoz rule that says glossary entries should be in dictionary form (2.5 here: https://www.proz.com/?sp=siterules&mode=show&category=kudoz_... but it is not the best known rule. Please don't squash this question: aren't archives meant to be cluttered? Some of us just love finding things they were not looking for. PS (20.16) Serendipity! That is the word I have had on the tip of my tongue all afternoon!
SafeTex Jul 3, 2020:
@ Adrian, Phil, Mpoma and all or "be legally binding" to reflect "loi" in French.
Can someone who has already said "binding" please put it up as a suggestion?
philgoddard Jul 3, 2020:
I agree with your suggested translation. The French does get Google hits, especially when you leave out "elles".

Proposed translations

+3
1 hr
French term (edited): [le présent contrat] qui fera la loi entre elles (/ les parties)
Selected

[...] which will be the law between them (/ the parties to the contract)


It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/dec2011/gr_171146_2011...

This a basic of contract law and is always true / implicitly present in ANY contract / usually omitted as "being blindingly obvious".

Why they felt the need to state it explicitly is anyone's guess.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2020-07-03 18:52:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------



Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States
....
[Bank of the United States vs. Owens and others.]

Was there not then an adequate considération given? It was so agreed, voluntarily, without coercion, compulsion or duresse; the parties being able and willing to contract, and understanding the subject matter of the contract. The bank had a perfect right to fix the terms upon which it would part with the notes, and the defendants an equal right to decide: whether they would accede to them. Both were the exclusive masters of their own judgment in making the contract; but that, once made, and not in itself unlawful, becomes the law between them [them = the parties to the contract]. No one has a right to alter it. The consideration has passed; the contract is executed; and the parties cannot now be restored to the condition they were in at the time of contracting. Sales are made according to ithe views of the parties, understood by themselves and influenced by many circumstances.
...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?pg=PA533&lpg=PA533&dq="the ...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2020-07-03 20:42:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------


this one is not about a commercial contract, but about the "implied contract between husband and wife", but the principle is still the same:

You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard

“reasonable needs” is no longer appropriate between spouses. The words “reasonable needs”, which used to be the law between husbands and wives, is no longer the law between them. That is why the phrase is in the Bill. It takes us back to a situation where a moderate sum is paid, not a footballer’s wife large sum. They come under House of Lords decisions, which are a completely different state of law.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2020-07-03 21:35:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

American Law in a Global Context: The Basics

https://books.google.co.uk › books

"the law between them" from books.google.co.uk

They testify to an important liberal principle, namely, that people can come together as strangers and voluntarily commit themselves to ***an agreement that takes the place of the law between them***. The final contract, whether it is written or​ ...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VuWQXfb1zaYC&pg=PA413&dq...



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 15 hrs (2020-07-06 02:52:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

this one illustrates well the intended meaning of

"le contrat fait la loi entre les parties"

note the "... takes the place of the law ..." part.

It's NOT about laws (of the kind voted by a legislative body or derived from international treaties or ...) that would be applicable to the contract.

The "law" in "a contract is the law between the parties" is the content of the contract itself i.e. all the obligations of all parties to each other. As far as parties to the contract are concerned (AND ONLY THEM) these contractual obligations are their "internal law" - an enforceable set of rules that must be followed (by them only - any other third parties is not concerned)
Peer comment(s):
neutral SafeTex : "Be the law between them" sounds sooo unEnglish and gets just 9 Google hits.
42 mins
you may presume that a Pilipino lawyer is incapable of learning perfectly good legal English but they are more than enough other occurrences by OTHER unimpeachable sources. Regarding "relevance" HERE "quality" far outweighs simple "numbers" ...
disagree philgoddard : Agree with SafeTex. This is not English, and nor are "Pilipino" or "they are more than enough occurrences by". The reason I say this is because you're not a native speaker, yet you constantly disagree with perfectly good answers by people who are.
1 hr
Boring ... // BTW, you are going to tell yourself judges of the US Supreme Court that according to your learned opinion they need urgently a refresher course in legal English, or you are going to leave them in the dark?
neutral AllegroTrans : such wording would never be used in British English and 'the law between them' is the codified contract law of the country concerned, the contract is merely the agreement between them
2 hrs
??? So these US Supreme Court judges must be in dire need of a refresher course: https://books.google.co.uk/books?pg=PA533&lpg=PA533&dq="the ...
agree Adrian MM. : the contract is the "law" between us and I must pay him https://www.jstor.org/stable/44026230?seq=1 // It's not in fact a UK 'textbook' contract term, rather - per ph-b - AmE & used by retd. Irish & Brit. Uni. Law Prof. Jeremy Phillips, so carries weight-
4 hrs
It's a so basic element of contract law (you'd expect it to be at the beginning of "Contract law for dummies" if it's ever written) that I'm stunned when "legally trained" people don't recognise it! Thanks!
agree Eliza Hall : For once I agree with Adrian :) @SafeTex & Phil, this is perfect EN legalese. SafeTex's search is too narrow; including "them" makes you miss all the "...between the parties," and including "be" makes you miss all the "is the law..."
8 hrs
Thanks! Looks like Google is like a loaded gun - easy to shoot yourself in the foot if not handled properly/wisely/according to the manual ... or with some minimum of prior knowledge.
neutral ph-b (X) : I agree the phrase exists (see Adrian's/my reference comments)and will support your answer if you can show it used in contracts (and not only reviews, articles,...), where form matters. PS Just realised you said below one would not use this in a contract.
16 hrs
you won't find the equivalent of "lu et approuvé" in contracts in UK or US, so you should just ignore that part? or "translate" it by putting whatever else? it might well be "unusual" but it's there in the ST so it must be translated *as it is*
agree Chris Pr
4 days
Thanks!
agree Cyril Tollari : or shall constitute the law... https://www.eumarinerobots.eu/sites/eumarinerobots.lsts.pt/f...
7 days
ça marche aussi, merci!
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+2
6 hrs

(shall) form the legal basis existing between them/shall be legally binding upon them

See discussion

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2020-07-03 18:25:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

or "the legal relationship between them"
may be better
Peer comment(s):
disagree Daryo : all that is true, but that is not the point of the maxim: a contract is not a "law" (of the type applicable to a whole country) but what parties have mutually agreed (i.e. a contract) will function (ONLY between them) as if it was a law
49 mins
and your maxim is fine but we simply don't put maxims into contracts
disagree Eliza Hall : The "legal basis" suggestion doesn't make sense (basis of what?), and "legally binding" is a synonym of the best translation ("shall be the law between them"). It's a legal maxim in EN that "a contract is the law between the parties."
2 hrs
Have you seen legal maxims actuallly written into contracts?
agree SafeTex : constructions with "legally binding" would be my solution
2 hrs
thanks
agree philgoddard : I agree with your point about not putting maxims in contracts. And even if you did, both of the disagrees above are silly, because they imply that your answer is wrong.
19 hrs
thanks and I think this is a case of the maxim 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'
agree ph-b (X) : with "shall be legally binding". That cannot be wrong and is certainly found in UK contracts, as opposed to "the law between the parties".
4 days
thanks
agree Yvonne Gallagher : to counter disagrees
18 days
thanks!
Something went wrong...
-1
2 days 10 hrs

to set the rules between them

It describes a situation between two females which involves a legal arrangement with clarified agreement.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2020-07-07 14:14:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Those involved in the situation are 'parties'. The use of the preposition 'entre' which is 'between' tells that the parties involved are two. The use of the feminine plural personal pronoun (elles) tells that they are women unless the parties involved are two separate groups of people which could be families or business organisations.
Example sentence:

C'est dans ces conditions que les parties ont décidé de régler leurs relations selon le présent contrat qui fera la loi entre elles.

It's within those conditions that those involved have decided to regulate their relationships depending on the present contract which will set the rules between them.

Peer comment(s):
neutral AllegroTrans : what females??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand the notion of gender in French nouns??????
1 hr
disagree Daryo : "elles" simply replaces nouns that are au féminin in French, [here "les parties au contrat"] which nouns could be referring to inanimate objects or even males - if the contract is between two males!+ your explanation is off-off-off ... tangent.
2 hrs
Something went wrong...

Reference comments

1 hr
Reference:

in the glossaries under 'font la loi' - as binding between the parties

That's the trouble when a non-infinite form is entered in the glossaries, plus my preference would for binding *as* between themselves /inter se, even though objected to by schoolmasterly types I have worked with.

IP Prof. Phillips of Queen Mary College, London Uni. at a T&I or I&T lecture 30 years ago 'a private contract made between parties is still a law unto itself and a little piece of the enforceable body of law, akin to legislation, and whether in England & Wales or in France'.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 heure (2020-07-03 12:46:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

No, pls. don't - as Prof. Phillips' explanation is a 'law unto itself' and IMO is a little jewel...
Reference:

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/french-to-english/law-contracts/3120163-font-la-loi.htm

Note from asker:
Thanks. I'll just squash this question, in order not to clutter the archives. But yes, it's 2020 and Proz should have more sophisticated index/searching systems.
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree Daryo : good explanations but the link you posted is dead. // That one works fine.
29 mins
Try this one: https://www.proz.com/kudoz/french-to-english/law-contracts/3...
agree philgoddard
2 hrs
Thanks and merci!
agree Tony M : The ProZ search system IS sophisticated; you just need to enter the term correctly as it appears, and "include definitions" to catch any incidental mentions; a good tip is to Google your term AND domain = Proz.com , which sometimes finds more things
2 hrs
Ah, thanks for that Tony! Looks like you have an Irish namesake on SPA> ENG: New Poster..
agree AllegroTrans
3 hrs
Thanks AT for my 'vicarious' hit.
agree ph-b (X)
7 hrs
Merci and thanks. Silence is consent from my usual stonewallers.
Something went wrong...
7 hrs
Reference:

Pacta sunt servanda (my Latin teacher would be proud of me)

« Locution latine affirmant le principe majeur selon lequel les traités et, plus généralement, les contrats doivent être respectés de bonne foi par les parties. »
https://actu.dalloz-etudiant.fr/le-saviez-vous/article/pacta...

More to the point, from what appears to be reputable, English-language sources:

"The bank had a perfect right to fix the terms upon which it would part with the notes, and the defendants an equal right to decide whether they would accede to them. Both were the exclusive masters of their own judgment in making the contract; but that, once made, and not in itself unlawful, becomes the law between them."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/27/527 (1829)


"We have no hesitancy in agreeing with the law as cited in brief of counsel for plaintiff-appellee to the effect that parties may make their own contracts and as such they form the law between them"
Bill Garrett Leasing, Inc. v. General Lumber & Supply Co., 164 So. 2d 364
https://cite.case.law/so-2d/164/364/ (1964)

"The agreement of the parties is, substantially, that they will be bound by whatever the arbitrators declare to be the law between them, and by this agreement they are bound."
https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/1954/...

I could not get to this one, so for information (2017):
www.ldi.la.gov › docs › receivership
PDFTraduire cette page
In other words, a contract between the parties is the law between them, and the courts are obligated to give legal effect to such contracts according to the true intent ...

Not about contracts, but still:
"The rules of conduct which nations have voluntarily adopted for themselves, and which therefore constitute the law between them, may be divided, with regard to their intrinsic character, into two general classes:..."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s... (1914)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2020-07-03 18:49:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------


I was going to agree with Daryo, but have just read AllegroTrans's 20.15 post in the discussion, so shall refrain.
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree AllegroTrans : as maxims they are of course correct but no legal draftsman would write a maxim into a contract (at least not where I live)
1 hr
agree Daryo : Agree ABOUT THE MEANING - it's another way of saying the same thing: "what you have agreed to in a contract becomes an obligation as strong as an obligation imposed by a law" but you wouldn't put it in a contract *instead of* what is in the ST - no need,
1 hr
agree philgoddard : Daryo says you wouldn't put it in a contract, but that's what his answer does. You can't win...
18 hrs
I know! LOL I mentioned that in my comment to his answer.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search