Apr 30, 2005 07:32
19 yrs ago
English term
based on a Product lifetime of 60 months
English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
I perfectly understand the phrase but I don't know how it can be interpreted in such a context:
In the event of infrigment, YXZ can remove its products and refund the reseller all fees and sums paid by the Reseller in respect of THEREOF PRORATED BASED ON A PRODUCT LIFETIME OF 60 MONTHS.
CAN YOU SAY THAT IN A SIMPLER WAY? ; )
In the event of infrigment, YXZ can remove its products and refund the reseller all fees and sums paid by the Reseller in respect of THEREOF PRORATED BASED ON A PRODUCT LIFETIME OF 60 MONTHS.
CAN YOU SAY THAT IN A SIMPLER WAY? ; )
Responses
| 4 +8 | See explanation below... |
Tony M
|
Responses
+8
15 mins
Selected
See explanation below...
It means that they give back the reseller only a proportion of the money they've paid, in proportion to the length of time they've had them.
Say the reseller had held the products for only 6 months; when XYZ claims them back, they will repay the moeny they've received, minus 10% for the time the reseller did have the products (etc.)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 mins (2005-04-30 07:50:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
By the way, I strongly suspect there is an error in your original sentence: I think that \"...in respect of thereof...\" should in fact not have that spurious first \'of\' --- simply \'in respect thereof\' makes perfect sense alone; probably someone trying to use legalese language, but not quite understanding how it works!
Doesn\'t change the overall intended meaning, though.
Say the reseller had held the products for only 6 months; when XYZ claims them back, they will repay the moeny they've received, minus 10% for the time the reseller did have the products (etc.)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 mins (2005-04-30 07:50:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
By the way, I strongly suspect there is an error in your original sentence: I think that \"...in respect of thereof...\" should in fact not have that spurious first \'of\' --- simply \'in respect thereof\' makes perfect sense alone; probably someone trying to use legalese language, but not quite understanding how it works!
Doesn\'t change the overall intended meaning, though.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Ali Beikian
5 mins
|
|
Thanks, Ali!
|
|
| agree |
Deborah do Carmo
50 mins
|
|
Thanks, Deborah!
|
|
| agree |
Derek Gill Franßen
: ...especially with your second comment (and thanks for teaching me a new word - "spurious"). :-)
1 hr
|
|
Thanks, Derek! Oh, you know, Dusty's answers are always littered with spurious asides... ;-))
|
|
| agree |
Can Altinbay
: I hope you don't find my agreement spurious. :)
7 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Can! Why, of course not! ;-)
|
|
| agree |
Robert Donahue (X)
: Nice explanation Dusty : )
11 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Robert! :-)
|
|
| agree |
Laurens Landkroon
13 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Somerset! (Is that Maugham, by the way?) ;-)
|
|
| agree |
humbird
15 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Humbird!
|
|
| agree |
Charlesp
1 day 1 hr
|
|
Thanks, Charles!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "thank you very much"
Discussion