Jun 21, 2018 14:13
5 yrs ago
37 viewers *
English term
to the satisfaction of a jury
English
Law/Patents
Law: Contract(s)
Context:
If any part of the TOS is proved to the satisfaction of a jury as being invalid or as having a non-binding nature, the rest of the Terms of Service will still remain binding.
If any part of the TOS is proved to the satisfaction of a jury as being invalid or as having a non-binding nature, the rest of the Terms of Service will still remain binding.
Responses
+3
4 hrs
Selected
the jury was "satisfied" = convinced / believed in the proofs that it's true
If any part of the TOS is proved to the satisfaction of a jury as being invalid or as having a non-binding nature, the rest of the Terms of Service will still remain binding.
=
if in a court case the jury finds convincing / believes the proofs/arguments that some part of the Terms of Service are not valid [and by implication, consequently the jury decides that way ] etc
the same meaning of "being satisfied" applies also to any official who can take decisions on their own discretion, based on their own judgement / appreciation of facts - like a Customs officer being "satisfied" (or not) that all that tobacco and brandy is "only for personal consumption" or a Traffic police being "satisfied" (or not) that the reason for speeding / driving through a red light was a genuine emergency, or a Planning officer being "satisfied" that the submitted application is in order and the planning permission should be granted etc etc
=
if in a court case the jury finds convincing / believes the proofs/arguments that some part of the Terms of Service are not valid [and by implication, consequently the jury decides that way ] etc
the same meaning of "being satisfied" applies also to any official who can take decisions on their own discretion, based on their own judgement / appreciation of facts - like a Customs officer being "satisfied" (or not) that all that tobacco and brandy is "only for personal consumption" or a Traffic police being "satisfied" (or not) that the reason for speeding / driving through a red light was a genuine emergency, or a Planning officer being "satisfied" that the submitted application is in order and the planning permission should be granted etc etc
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Tina Vonhof (X)
: I agree with 'convinced' but, with regard to the second part of your answer, note that a court case does not aim to 'prove' that something is 'true' but rather to come to a conclusion based on the evidence presented.
2 hrs
|
|
Better not start a discussion about what really is a "solid/error proof" evidence ... Thanks!
|
|
| agree |
AllegroTrans
: convinced on the basis of evidence ("believed" is far too woolly a term in legalspeak) ("Well I voted guilty like, because of the evidence like, but I don't believe the gaffer really dun it..)
17 hrs
|
|
Point taken. Thanks!
|
|
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: yes, with AT and, of course, this was the question asked.
4 days
|
|
Thanks!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
Discussion
As your text refers to state and federal courts, and assuming this is a US case, I think it's unlikely that they're insisting on a jury here.
If it were me, I'd probably translate it as "court" and put a note saying "the English says jury, but I don't think this is the literal meaning".
So maybe I'm wrong. It sounds like this could be a US text, since it refers to state and federal courts.
When are juries used in criminal and civil cases? - InBrief.co.uk
https://www.inbrief.co.uk › Legal System
Juries are only used in a limited number of civil cases. However, they have a dual role when they are used. The jury will decide upon the facts of the case to find ...
Context:
The proper venue for any disputes arising out of or relating to any of the same will be the State and/or Federal Courts.