ViBe Jul 13, 2013:

You're welcome... ... if that last comment was meant for me.
The only “special relationship” that can bind two or more companies is that they may be RELATED to each other as parts of a bigger holding or as mother and daughter companies may be related. The polish is redundant (“konkretny lub sczególny”) and therefore confusing. Cheers!

Renata Babuska (asker) Jul 13, 2013:

I think you are right "unrelated parties" is the most frequently used term in documents in English. The passage I quoted comes from Polish version of expert opinion/appraisal. Thank you

Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz Jul 11, 2013:

Because if a contract is already in effect, it needs to be translated faithfully. The spirit is for courts to interpret, and the legal equivalence of the clauses is more important than their aesthetical feel.

ViBe Jul 11, 2013:

Hmm... If the contract (its Polish version?) is already in effect, why bother and translate it LITERALLY into what is NOT IDIOMATIC English rather than getting the SPIRIT of the message across to someone who is ALREADY bound by the Polish language contract anyway? And “unrelated” covers it all in idiomatic legal English. ;)

Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz Jul 11, 2013:

You can do that when you're making an English version for a Polish client yet to be signed by him and his counterparty, I guess, but IMHO it would diverge too far from the source if the source were an existing, already binding contract.

ViBe Jul 11, 2013:

"unrelated" (parties)... ... is the term commonly used in the context of transfer pricing (if the text IS about TP). Alternatively, one can address this from the opposite angle and use another common term “at arm's length.” Should work.