This question was closed without grading. Reason: No acceptable answer
Jan 14, 2023 14:11
1 yr ago
10 viewers *
English term
explicit exlution
English to Swedish
Law/Patents
Insurance
Jag översätter ett totalentreprenörsavtal och då står det så här i ett avsnitt om olika försäkringar som behöver tecknas:
The Employer shall take out and pay for all-risk insurance (CAR) for damage in contracts with the Contractor, subcontractors, material suppliers and consultants as insured parties. Insurance shall be project insurance and shall also apply to ancillary contractors. Insurance shall apply until handover of the contract work and in the case of damage during the guarantee period for which the Contractor is responsible, for a further two years thereafter. Insurance shall apply to the work area and therefore not cover transport outside the work area. The CAR policy will specifically exclude coverage for the Contractor’s tools and equipment and with the explicit exlution of the contractors own equipment. Insurance shall cover pre-loading (sw: belastning), test runs, final adjustment, trial operation, performance tests and similar.
Först och främst ger inte Explicit exlution någon träff vid en Google-sökning, så det ska troligen vara Explicit exclusion. Men det verkar som att man upprepat samma sak två gånger:
The CAR policy will specifically exclude coverage for the Contractor’s tools and equipment
and with the explicit exlution of the contractors own equipment
Det är väl ingen skillnad mellan den första och andra raden ovan i betydelse? I bägge fallen säger man att försäkringstäckning utesluts för entreprenörens verktyg och utrustning.
The Employer shall take out and pay for all-risk insurance (CAR) for damage in contracts with the Contractor, subcontractors, material suppliers and consultants as insured parties. Insurance shall be project insurance and shall also apply to ancillary contractors. Insurance shall apply until handover of the contract work and in the case of damage during the guarantee period for which the Contractor is responsible, for a further two years thereafter. Insurance shall apply to the work area and therefore not cover transport outside the work area. The CAR policy will specifically exclude coverage for the Contractor’s tools and equipment and with the explicit exlution of the contractors own equipment. Insurance shall cover pre-loading (sw: belastning), test runs, final adjustment, trial operation, performance tests and similar.
Först och främst ger inte Explicit exlution någon träff vid en Google-sökning, så det ska troligen vara Explicit exclusion. Men det verkar som att man upprepat samma sak två gånger:
The CAR policy will specifically exclude coverage for the Contractor’s tools and equipment
and with the explicit exlution of the contractors own equipment
Det är väl ingen skillnad mellan den första och andra raden ovan i betydelse? I bägge fallen säger man att försäkringstäckning utesluts för entreprenörens verktyg och utrustning.
References
exclution = typo for "exclusion"? |
liz askew
![]() |
Reference comments
5 mins
Reference:
exclution = typo for "exclusion"?
..
Note from asker:
Yes, probably a typo for Exclusion. But it still does not make sense as the same meaning is repeated in the same sentence. |
Could it be the case that in the first instance reference is made to rental tools and equipment (that the contractor uses) whereas in the second instance there is an emphasis made on the contractor's own tools and equipment? |
Something went wrong...