Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Spanish term or phrase:
de manera retroactiva
English translation:
with retroactive effect
Spanish term
de manera retroactiva
El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor de manera retroactiva desde el 1 de enero de 2017 tras la firma por ambas Partes y permanecerá en vigor hasta que éstas hayan cumplido con todas las obligaciones contraídas en virtud del mismo.
Estoy más que consciente como se traduce "de manera retroactiva" al inglés, sin embargo, me gustaría saber si ya existe una "frase de cajón" en el campo legal para dicho término.
De antemano, gracias.
4 +5 | with retroactive effect | Charles Davis |
2 +6 | enter into force retroactively from | Taña Dalglish |
Mar 7, 2019 11:57: patinba changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
Non-PRO (3): A. & S. Witte, philgoddard, patinba
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
with retroactive effect
"Agreements Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and AUSTRALIA
[...]
The Agreement shall enter into force with retroactive effect from February 26, 2000" (p. 7)
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/244967.pdf
"6. No Further Amendments, Entry Into Force of This AgreementThe remaining provisions of the agreement shall remain unchanged. This amendment agreement shall enter into force with retroactive effect as of January 1, 2014."
https://www.eon.com/content/dam/eon/eon-com/investors/shareh...
agree |
neilmac
: I prefer this for a contract, not sure why...
52 mins
|
Thanks, Neil ;-) I think it makes the meaning clearer, and to me it sounds more natural.
|
|
agree |
liz askew
1 hr
|
Thanks, Liz :-)=
|
|
agree |
Joshua Parker
2 hrs
|
Thanks, Joshua :-)
|
|
agree |
AllegroTrans
5 hrs
|
Thanks, Chris :-)
|
|
neutral |
philgoddard
: I don't see how this is different, except for being longer.
12 hrs
|
It is differently phrased, and in my opinion clearer and better. And in relation to the asker's question about whether there's a "frase de cajón", it is certainly more usual in non-translated contracts.
|
|
agree |
Luis M. Sosa
19 hrs
|
Thanks, Luis :-)
|
enter into force retroactively from
agree |
A. & S. Witte
4 mins
|
Thank you.
|
|
agree |
neilmac
: Maybe "backdated", but perhaps that's a bit informal for a contract...
59 mins
|
Thanks. Charles' proposal too "with retroactive effect" is what I have seen more often than not.
|
|
agree |
liz askew
: https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1438775172 IBP, Inc - 2012 - Business & Economics 16/05/00 entered into force on exchange of letters 8/6/00 - due to putsch in Fiji, ... 20/05/00 signature (entered into force retroactively from 20/9/99) Agreement on
1 hr
|
Thank you Liz.
|
|
agree |
Marco Paz
2 hrs
|
Thank you Marco.
|
|
agree |
AllegroTrans
5 hrs
|
Thank you.
|
|
agree |
philgoddard
12 hrs
|
Thank you.
|
Discussion
Firstly, I have to say thank you very, very much for your assistance.
Secondly, this time it will be a little bit hard to select the best answer because I think that both of them are Ok.