On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:22 -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > "Jamie Jones" <hentai_yagi@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > [🔎] 1148386328.13174.22.camel@doomguy">news:[🔎] 1148386328.13174.22.camel@doomguy... > >Based on my understanding of Japanese law, the original document being > >in Japanese is the one that is legally binding, even if the author makes > >an English translation. Other jurisdictions may accept a hypothetical > >English translation, but in the event of a dispute, the correct terms > >are in the Japanese version. > > I assume that the author could in theory make the English document > caniconical, > and the Japanese version non-binding. Would this be corretct? As I understand it, in Japan, no. Of course that assumes the author is fluent in English, which may not be the case. It has been my experience that no English documents (excluding the constitution of Japan) have any legal status. Would your country (if it has one official language) accept documents written in another language, without a government certified translation ? Mine does not. Regards -- Jamie Jones Proprietor E-Yagi Consulting ABN: 32 138 593 410 Mob: +61 4 16 025 081 Email: eyagi.consulting@gmail.com Web: http://www.eyagiconsulting.com GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part