Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | liability for a "faulty" translation Thread poster: Scheherezade Suria Lopez
| Gerard de Noord France Local time: 10:10 Member (2003) English to Dutch + ... Take your loss | Jan 23, 2009 |
I had a look at your profile and you seem to be doing extremely well, four years in the business and already translated eleven books. Take your loss and negotiate an amount between 15 and 700 euro. Making several mistakes in a 15 euro job is indeed unforgivable.
The English translation of my own General Conditions states:
Without prejudice to the conditions stated above and in any event, the maximum liability of [me] could in no case exceed, whatever the cause of its responsib... See more I had a look at your profile and you seem to be doing extremely well, four years in the business and already translated eleven books. Take your loss and negotiate an amount between 15 and 700 euro. Making several mistakes in a 15 euro job is indeed unforgivable.
The English translation of my own General Conditions states:
Without prejudice to the conditions stated above and in any event, the maximum liability of [me] could in no case exceed, whatever the cause of its responsibility, and all causes confounded, a sum equal to the highest of the two following amounts: the amount of the payment received by [me] for the service that entailed the responsibility of [me] or hundred (100) euro.
I found something similar on the Internet when I started my business and I thought adding it to my conditions would be cheaper than getting a liability insurance.
Success!
Gerard ▲ Collapse | | | Arnaud HERVE France Local time: 10:10 English to French + ...
Gerard de Noord wrote:
Making several mistakes in a 15 euro job is indeed unforgivable.
Forgivable, unforgivable, that is not a notion of law.
The agency accepted her product, and was in charge of proofreading it before delivery. Thus it is the product of the agency and not the product of the translator that was delivered to the end client.
Besides, personally I seldom call things "unforgivable". | | | Taija Hyvönen Finland Local time: 11:10 Member (2008) English to Finnish + ... I also have this | Jan 23, 2009 |
The English translation of my own General Conditions states:
Without prejudice to the conditions stated above and in any event, the maximum liability of [me] could in no case exceed, whatever the cause of its responsibility, and all causes confounded, a sum equal to the highest of the two following amounts: the amount of the payment received by [me] for the service that entailed the responsibility of [me] or hundred (100) euro.
I found something similar on the Internet when I started my business and I thought adding it to my conditions would be cheaper than getting a liability insurance.
Though without the hundred euros part. It's in the terms and conditions of the Finnish Association of Translators and Interpreters, of which I am a member.
This does remind me of the case where the translator charged 35 euros for bolding two titles (in a thread a while back) - in that I can't understand anyone here. How many mistakes can you fit in a job this small? How can you send it to a client without someone taking a look at it? How can you send it to print without someone taking a look at it? I can see a chain of screw-ups adding up to what we have here. In this forum we tend to instinctively take the translator's side, and without seeing the piece in question no one can really say what was wrong with it in the first place. | | | Oleg Rudavin Ukraine Local time: 11:10 Member (2003) English to Ukrainian + ... The worst advice ever! | Jan 23, 2009 |
Mohamed Mehenoun wrote: ... AND BE OFFENSIVE ABOUT IT ! | |
|
|
XX789 (X) Netherlands Local time: 10:10 English to Dutch + ... I don't think so | Jan 23, 2009 |
As for you, you delivered a translated text, as ordered, and it is universally admitted that texts delivered by translators need proofreading.
I don't think so. When you call a plumber, you don't have his work checked either, have you? You assume that he did a good job.
I agree that the problem between the end client and the agency is a problem between the end client and the agency, but that doesn't mean that it's legally okay to deliver faulty translations. | | | Sarah Wood United Kingdom Local time: 09:10 French to English Proofreading | Jan 23, 2009 |
Proofreading is not simply a question of 'checking' someone's work. It is a necessary part of the publication process in any language. Proofreading should be a stage in every responsible translation agency's quality assurance process.
I agree completely with Arnaud. Why did they pay for the translation if it was so 'faulty'? Is it because it wasn't checked at the time? Is it because they did check it but didn't care? Either way they were taking a risk - why should the translator su... See more Proofreading is not simply a question of 'checking' someone's work. It is a necessary part of the publication process in any language. Proofreading should be a stage in every responsible translation agency's quality assurance process.
I agree completely with Arnaud. Why did they pay for the translation if it was so 'faulty'? Is it because it wasn't checked at the time? Is it because they did check it but didn't care? Either way they were taking a risk - why should the translator suffer the consequences of that risk?
I also agree with Arnaud that it is their responsilbility to liaise with the end client. It is their customer, not yours. You don't know what contract they had or what the initial negotiations were. You don't even know what the client paid for the translation. ▲ Collapse | | | Arnaud HERVE France Local time: 10:10 English to French + ... Assumptions and shifts of meaning | Jan 23, 2009 |
Loek van Kooten wrote:
When you call a plumber, you don't have his work checked either, have you? You assume that he did a good job.
You take an example where the plumber is the last person to deliver the product to the end client, a professional situation where it is universally assumed that the client at home is not an expert, and it is universally assumed that the plumber is the expert in charge of making the right technical decisions.
To keep closer to our case here, you should rather imagine someone delivered a faulty tube to the plumber, the plumber accepted it despite his being an expert, despite the fault being obvious and not hidden, and then deliberately installed the faulty tube.
By chosing your example of the plumber, you made a shift of meaning from the liability of the translator to liability of the agency.
Loek van Kooten wrote:
I agree that the problem between the end client and the agency is a problem between the end client and the agency, but that doesn't mean that it's legally okay to deliver faulty translations.
I think you are right here, except in your use of the term "legally", which sounds excessive to me.
Usually, delivering a faulty translation doesn't provoke a "legal" case, but an informal commercial talk between the agency and the translator, in which the translator agrees at most not to be paid. At worst, the translator can sue the agency if s/he doesn't agree on the new conditions, but the agency can certainly not sue the translator.
In the other direction, the agency receiving a faulty product can only refuse it, look for another translator, but certainly not sue the first translator. At least as long as the jurisprudence that some translators wish to apply against other translators is not applied.
The difference, the real important difference to take into account, is that the product received by the agency is not in real-world use yet. There is no malfunction to talk about of the product in the agency. It is still an unfinished product. It can only be tested, and not exploited. It is the responsibility of the agency to deliver a finished product, deemed fit to real use in the real world.
By saying "legally" in addition to the moral "okay", you shift the meaning towards a potential world where translators will hold liability for the proofreading to the point of being sued instead of just commercially sanctioned in case of mistakes, which seems to me against the interests of translators.
You may also think of work agreements in general, for example in a factory. When the employee made a mistake, that was detected by inner procedures and could stopped in time, the employee can at worst be dismissed. If the mistake was not detected and/or provoked damages and costs, then the employee can become liable... if it can be demonstrated that there was no one in charge of checking (like a supervisor, or a sells department...), or in case there was someone in charge of checking, if it can be demonstrated that checking was clearly impossible (for instance in a closed package), or, lastly, if there was some clause in the work agreement stating the employee himself was entirely responsible for this and that check procedure.
Here we have the obvious role of the agency in the final proofreading (even if denied on a proz.com forum), we have a product that was not closed and extremely quick to check, and we have no special agreement putting the translator in charge of the final perfection of the product.
Please bear in mind also that the product sold by the translator to the agency did not provoke damages for the agency, but it is the product sold by the agency to the end client that provoked damages for the end client. Typically, the product delivered by the translator to the agency didn't provoke unexpected costs and delays for proofreading.
As far as liability agreements from other countries or sectors or agencies are concerned, we could also quote all the special agreements in the world where a precise amount of liability is mentioned, but since the translator here did not sign such an agreement, applying to her the rules of an agreement she never signed could be perceived as unnecessarily aggressive.
We are still in a world where we are not bound by the agreements we did not sign. At least I hope everybody here can admit that.
A situation where a translator comes for help on a Proz.com forum, and finds herself accused by translators beyond what the agency herself would deem necessary, is clearly a problem to me. You will notice here that the agency only requests money, remains on the plane of commercial liability, and does not raise to the plane of existential guilt.
Such a habit would tend to make Proz.com forums dangerous for translators who have a business problem. And I don't want that.
You will notice here that it is a person who honestly admitted having made mistakes, and asked for advice. I wonder if every accuser here is capable of the same attitude. Maybe one or two persons made worst mistakes and enjoy being in the position of the accuser yet. I don't know, we'll never know.
I think that, normally, we should not insist on the mistakes, admit that what has been done has been done, and look for the best interests of the translator now.
This attitude would also be in the sense of the law, since the transaction between the translator and the agency was clearly closed when the agency delivered the product to the end client, and the agency was clearly in the capacity and responsibility to do the final proofreading before the final delivery.
And even if we faced a unanimous uproar here on Proz.com for the translator being in charge of the final proofreading, it will still be universally admitted that this is the role of the agency.
[Edited at 2009-01-23 11:16 GMT]
[Edited at 2009-01-23 11:21 GMT] | | | Proofreading is essential | Jan 23, 2009 |
What we call an "agency" is often a very small business with 3-4 people looking for a translator in a language pair none of them master. Unless they have translators on the site, proofreading is an absolute necessity.
I was working for an NGO in Cambodia and had English and French texts translated into Khmer, a language I do not master. There were no "agencies" there. Believe me, nothing was printed before I had it checked several times.
We cannot ask an end-client to make sure the ... See more What we call an "agency" is often a very small business with 3-4 people looking for a translator in a language pair none of them master. Unless they have translators on the site, proofreading is an absolute necessity.
I was working for an NGO in Cambodia and had English and French texts translated into Khmer, a language I do not master. There were no "agencies" there. Believe me, nothing was printed before I had it checked several times.
We cannot ask an end-client to make sure the final text is without typos or else. That's the job of the agency, that's what they were paid for. In any case, the liability is with the agency. ▲ Collapse | |
|
|
Eric Hahn (X) France Local time: 10:10 French to German + ...
Arnaud HERVE wrote:
Gerard de Noord wrote:
Making several mistakes in a 15 euro job is indeed unforgivable.
Forgivable, unforgivable, that is not a notion of law.
The agency accepted her product, and was in charge of proofreading it before delivery. Thus it is the product of the agency and not the product of the translator that was delivered to the end client.
Besides, personally I seldom call things "unforgivable".
The initial question only concerned the liability.
If the agency were a plumber, he simply mistook a steel tube for a PVC tube.
And an "agency" who is not able to do it itself, should outsource the proofreading, too !
[Edited at 2009-01-23 12:01 GMT] | | | Eric Hahn (X) France Local time: 10:10 French to German + ...
[Edited at 2009-01-23 11:33 GMT] | | | Eric Hahn (X) France Local time: 10:10 French to German + ... It depends ... | Jan 23, 2009 |
Loek van Kooten wrote:
As for you, you delivered a translated text, as ordered, and it is universally admitted that texts delivered by translators need proofreading.
... but it should be the case specially when the text is going to be printed !
[Edited at 2009-01-23 12:46 GMT] | | |
Hi there,
The agency has just sent me an email with the invoice that the client has sent them (with the full amount, of course).
They are very kind, though... they offer me flexible installments to pay and here's the best, they even offer me the chance to work for them for free until it's all paid. If I am so incompetent why are they offering that?
I've told them I'm not going to pay until I speak to my lawyer.
As I say, I admit it was my fault not to re-che... See more Hi there,
The agency has just sent me an email with the invoice that the client has sent them (with the full amount, of course).
They are very kind, though... they offer me flexible installments to pay and here's the best, they even offer me the chance to work for them for free until it's all paid. If I am so incompetent why are they offering that?
I've told them I'm not going to pay until I speak to my lawyer.
As I say, I admit it was my fault not to re-check it but do they really think I have to pay it all?
Thank you very much for your advice! ▲ Collapse | |
|
|
XX789 (X) Netherlands Local time: 10:10 English to Dutch + ...
In the other direction, the agency receiving a faulty product can only refuse it, look for another translator, but certainly not sue the first translator.
That depends. I've actually sent a laywer to a translator once (mind you, I'm a translator myself). This case however was a bit more extreme. I actually wrote about it here: http://www.proz.com/forum/being_independent/7569-amateur_translators.html#46903
In this case, the translator refused to make corrections, she refused to carry out the work as promised, the work that she did deliver was clearly substandard and she was the one who actually started sending lawyers to me. We missed the deadline, the client was upset and I had to hire another translator, which did not come cheap.
The case did not go to trial but was settled by lawers, and I won. Easily. The translator had to pay for the outsourcing to the second translator plus the courier costs to be able to deliver the new translation to the client as soon as possible. This amounted to about 1300 euro or so.
Now I admit this case is much more extreme and the attitude of this translator can in no way be compared to Scheherezade's attitude.
I just want to show you that in reality, translators can be hold liable for certain costs if they are clearly guilty of malpractice.
[Edited at 2009-01-23 13:07 GMT] | | |
Scheherezade Suria Lopez wrote:
They are very kind, though... they offer me flexible installments to pay and here's the best, they even offer me the chance to work for them for free until it's all paid. If I am so incompetent why are they offering that?
Kind?! Hm.
This is a great chance for a freebie for them perhaps. Their liability insurance should already cover the loss except for any deductible (I think mine is € 100 euros or so).
With this "kind" proposal they get slave labor at whatever rate you get from them (being charged to the end customer, of course, at a higher rate) until the "debt" is worked off.
Nobody called you incompetent, but maybe they are offering because they think you are stupid.
Here's a suggestion for a "fair" resolution to assuage whatever existential guilt you may feel. Mind you, from the viewpoint of strict legal liability, it is the agency that probably bears all responsibility (I agree with Arnaud for once) unless you explicitly accepted terms that state otherwise, and even then the question may remain open.
First, establish whether they have liability insurance. Such insurance is cheap, and any "agency" which lacks it is NOT a business partner to be taken seriously. I would let them eat the bill just to teach them a lesson for that - my annual bill for liability insurance covering this type of loss up to € 200,000 is far, far less than the amount of damages here. If the company has such insurance, end of story. You might offer to split or pay the deductible if you want to be nice, but you have no obligation to do so.
If there is no liability insurance and you are afraid that you will burn in Hell or otherwise suffer for your carelessness, and you choose for reasons of business or other purposes to pay some or all of the damages, then by all means go for some version of their proposal. But I would split the bill to remind them that they share this liability. A puny 15 euro job would also be cheap to proofread. For that matter, the end client could have had it proofread - many do. Legally, it is most likely NOT your problem in any case. Let's skip the moral arguments (there I go agreeing with Arnaud again) - anything else you do should be strictly a business decision. | | | Eric Hahn (X) France Local time: 10:10 French to German + ...
I agree with Kevin (and of course with myself), but if I were you, I would do nothing but wait.
Don't contact them directly any more and consult your own lawyer only after receipt of a letter from their lawyer.
It's really not worth worrying about it. But perhaps you should make use of a spell checker ?
[Edited at 2009-01-23 13:14 GMT] | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » liability for a "faulty" translation Wordfast Pro |
---|
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| CafeTran Espresso |
---|
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |