Thread: How to use "indemnity"

I am not sure if I am using the word "indemnity" in the correct form..
in red my translation.

9. INDEMNITY
9. INDEMNIDAD

9.1. The parties are reciprocally indemnified against any claim that the other party’s employers, or their family or heirs might have for debts of the respective employee.
9.1. Las partes se mantendrán recíprocamente indemnes por cualquier reclamación que un empleado de una de ellas, o parientes o herederos de los mismos, dirijan contra la otra por deudas propias del empleador respectivo.-------------------------------------------------------------

That usage is correct.

Originally Posted by vicente

I said I was going to stay out of legal translations but this looks wrong to me. Employer and employee are reversed.

9.1. The parties are reciprocally indemnified against any claim that an employee of either of them (party), or the relatives or heirs of same, might make for appropriate debts of the respective employer.

Las partes se mantendrán recíprocamente indemnes por cualquier reclamación que un empleado de una de ellas, o parientes o herederos de los mismos, dirijan contra la otra por deudas propias del empleador respectivo.-------------------------------------------------------------

Vicente, Going back to CeciyJuani's question about the use of the word "indemnes", in this context I think it means that,

There are two parties (2 companies) who have joined forces and are working together.

These companies have, at some stage, worked separately, and have separate books for their employees.

If any of the employees (or their families) lodge a claim for non-payment of wages (for example) against one of the companies, then the other remaining company will not be liable, ie the company involved in the claim for wages will not involve the other company, the latter being "indemne" to the first company's debts for that claim.

That is how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I am right, then the word "indemne" is not being correctly translated, and the translation should read something like,

The parties will not claim liability from each other in any case of a claim that an employee of either, or a relative or heir of either, lodges against the other party for debts incurred by the relevant employer.

"Propias" is not "appropriate", it is more like "personal" or even "relevant" in this context.

"Indemnity" means "an agreement by one person (X) to pay to another (Y) sums that are owed, or may become owed, to him by a third person (Z) (The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Law). So, if the parties are "reciprocally indemnifying" each other against claims from an employee, I read it as them paying for each other's debts towards the claim. I don't think that is the case here. I think the case here is that they will not be responsible for any debt that the other party will incur as a result of a claim by that party's employee (or relatives').

Legal translations are a pain, I don't like them, but I like discussing them in this forum. Ultimately, I hope this discussion is helpful for the translator and that we all learn something. I certainly learn a lot (not to do them is one thing I've learned).

Anyway, it's Thursday evening here in Sydney, Australia, it's been a long day, and tomorrow night my husband is taking me to the Club Uruguayo. We're going to have a lovely dinner and dance and hopefully we'll meet some friends.

Sorry if I've been to harsh in my comments above, as I said, it's been a loooong day, and I'm tired. Got into the computer to relax, but I haven't, the letters in the screen are jumping out at me. See you and have a lovely day tomorrow.

Kind regards

Isabel

Originally Posted by vicente

Not at all harsh Isabel!

I am not a legal translator and I have found out that I know practically nothing about how Spanish terminology translates to English legal terms so I am attempting to stay clear of them.

But at times I see an obvious error.

In this instance I noticed that ceciyjuani has empleado translated as employer and empleador as employee and had left out a key word or two. I wasn't trying to offer legal wording so much as I was trying to draw her attention to the errors and omissions.

Since she has not acknowledged our input I just hope that she catches these errors before she finishes her product.

I thought you were a legal translator, your comments are always spot on. If I'm not wrong, you have a background in law. Anyway, thanks for your reply, Vicente. I hope Ceciyjuani can do the translations successfully.

Have a good weekend.

Isabel

Originally Posted by Nira

Las partes se mantendrán recíprocamente indemnes por cualquier reclamación que un empleado de una de ellas, o parientes o herederos de los mismos, dirijan contra la otra por deudas propias del empleador respectivo.-------------------------------------------------------------

Vicente, Going back to CeciyJuani's question about the use of the word "indemnes", in this context I think it means that,

There are two parties (2 companies) who have joined forces and are working together.

These companies have, at some stage, worked separately, and have separate books for their employees.

If any of the employees (or their families) lodge a claim for non-payment of wages (for example) against one of the companies, then the other remaining company will not be liable, ie the company involved in the claim for wages will not involve the other company, the latter being "indemne" to the first company's debts for that claim.

That is how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I am right, then the word "indemne" is not being correctly translated, and the translation should read something like,

The parties will not claim liability from each other in any case of a claim that an employee of either, or a relative or heir of either, lodges against the other party for debts incurred by the relevant employer.

"Propias" is not "appropriate", it is more like "personal" or even "relevant" in this context.

"Indemnity" means "an agreement by one person (X) to pay to another (Y) sums that are owed, or may become owed, to him by a third person (Z) (The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Law). So, if the parties are "reciprocally indemnifying" each other against claims from an employee, I read it as them paying for each other's debts towards the claim. I don't think that is the case here. I think the case here is that they will not be responsible for any debt that the other party will incur as a result of a claim by that party's employee (or relatives').

Legal translations are a pain, I don't like them, but I like discussing them in this forum. Ultimately, I hope this discussion is helpful for the translator and that we all learn something. I certainly learn a lot (not to do them is one thing I've learned).

Anyway, it's Thursday evening here in Sydney, Australia, it's been a long day, and tomorrow night my husband is taking me to the Club Uruguayo. We're going to have a lovely dinner and dance and hopefully we'll meet some friends.

Sorry if I've been to harsh in my comments above, as I said, it's been a loooong day, and I'm tired. Got into the computer to relax, but I haven't, the letters in the screen are jumping out at me. See you and have a lovely day tomorrow.

Kind regards

Isabel

"indemnity" refers to a total shifting of the economic loss to the party chiefly or primarily responsible for that loss 124 N.Y.S, 2d 634, 636, rather than to the party contractually responsible. So, if the parties are "reciprocally indemnifying" each other against claims from an employee, they are stating that they are not primarily responsible for the other party's debt.

Your Spanish text refers to “employers” for security against hurt, loss, or damage. 2. Exemption from incurred penalties or liabilities. Therefore, let’s make some minor changes as follows:
The parties shall stay reciprocally indemnified against any claim made by one of their employees, or any family members or their heirs might have against one of the parties for debts of their respective employer.