title在法律英語中怎麼翻譯

『壹』 法律英語中，ownership和title區別，是不是兩者都翻譯為所有權，兩者有區別嗎

雖然不懂法律英文。但是我能理解的意思如下：

ownership：這是法律名詞，表明了標的物的所有權，非常確定的關系
title：這就是個標簽，聲稱的意思，不一定包含ownership關系，也不承諾是ownership的關系

『貳』 法律英語中有哪些經典表達

英文合同中有一些比較特定的，也就是在其他類型的文章中不容易出現的表達。這些句式和短語在其他文章類型以及日常用語中出現的頻率非常之低，以至於當它們出現在英文合同中時，總是給讓人一種陌生的感覺。其實，如果你是法律英語專業出身或者經常會有機會接觸英文合同，你就會發現這些特定的表達數量並不算多，只是我們很少去歸納和總結而已。現在，我們就來總結一下，也歡迎各位法律英語專業人士來補充。
1、In accordance with/pursuant to 依據/依照/按照……的規定
合同是當事雙方的「法律」。合同的目的在於盡最大可能使合同項下的交易行為依照法律規定或約定來開展，從而雙方的交易變得具有可預見性。因此，合同中會經常出現「依據……的約定（規定）來……」的表達。在長期的合同翻譯實踐中，當需要表達依據時，專業法律人士傾向於使用in accordance with 或pursuant to.
2、In respect of/ in connection with/ with respect to 就……
在英語合同的翻譯中，我們經常會遇見這樣的表達，以表示對相關事物的限定。而在一般的英語文本中，當表達或提及到某一特定的事物時，我們通常會用concerning/regarding/in relation to/relating等。這些詞如果放在法律文本中，則會讓人感覺比較隨意，不像in respect of 那樣莊重、正式。
3、Except (for)/ unless 除非……；除……外
英文合同中經常會對一些例外的情況進行規定，最常見的表達是「除非……另有規定，否則……」，這里最常見的搭配是unless otherwise provided/stipulated, Party A shall not....比如，except as provided/stipulated in Article XXX，我們通常翻譯為「除本法第XXX條的規定外」
4、Notwithstanding... 無論……如何規定；盡管有……的規定
作為介詞，notwithstanding在普通的英文文本中很少出現。但其在英文合同中的出現頻率卻相當高。Notwithstanding的含義和普通英文文章中常見的although/though/even if沒有太大分別，最明顯的區別在於在法律合同中，notwithstanding中後面常跟名詞性短語。比如：Notwithstanding the foregoing，一般翻譯為「盡管本合同前述條款有所規定……，但……」
5、Provided that... 但（前提）是……
Provided that一般在法律合同中會出現在主句的後面，表示一種限定或者是前面主句所存在的條件。法律界通常稱這種句子為「但書」（proviso）。
6、For the purpose(s) of... 就……而言；在……中
這又是一個在英文合同中經常出現的短語，不熟悉法律英語的譯者在遇到這個短語時，可能第一個反應就是「為了……目的」。但其實在法律合同中，這個短語的表達其實並非我們想像的那樣簡單。大家都來擦亮眼睛，看看下面這個句子：FASIMILE SIGNATURES. The signature on this Agreement of any party that is faxed to the other party, will be deemed an original signature for the purpose of enforcement of this Agreement. 請問有多少人看了這個句子，會本能的將for the purpose of理解為「出於……之目的/為了……」？合理的譯文：傳真簽名。通過傳真方式發送給另一方的任何一方在本協議上的簽署在本協議的實施中將被視為原始簽署。For the purpose this Agreement, all costs of arbitration shall be borne by the losing Party unless otherwise stipulated by the arbitration tribunal.就本協議而言，所有仲裁費用應由敗訴方承擔，除非仲裁庭另有規定。
7、Subject to... 根據……的規定；在不抵觸……的前提下；受制於……
該短語在法律英文中一般都跟agreement, section, contract等法律文件名稱或文件中特定的條款名配合使用。通常可以翻譯為「以……為條件」、「根據……的規定」、「在符合……的情況下」、「在不抵觸……規定的情況下」等。
8、Without prejudice to... 在不影響……前提下；不影響……這個英文法律短語的功能相當於普通英文中的without affecting。與subject to 的用法相同，跟在without prejudice to這個短語之後的通常是一個指代某項法律條款的名詞。其所包含的限制含義沒有subject to那麼強。看看下面這個例句：Without prejudice to section 24, the following shall be treated as properly executed...參考譯文：在不影響第24條規定的情況下，以下協議應視為正式簽訂……。
9、Where... 如果……；凡……；……的
在普通英文中where通常用來引導地點狀語從句或定語從句，但在法律英文中它常用於引導條件狀語從句。其意義相當於in the case，即「凡……」、「如……」。
法律合同翻譯猶如浩瀚的海洋，唯有在翻譯的過程中抱著一絲不苟的態度，勤於查詢、勤於積累並能夠不斷的消化和吸收，我們才能夠自在徜徉並有信心為客戶帶來最優質的翻譯作品。
編者註：以上內容由譯銳翻譯編輯整理自《英文合同的翻譯與起草》，作者：王相國；

『叄』 法律英語術語翻譯的問題

registered designs 專利設計
the law of confidence 保密法（或商業機密法）
passing off 終止，完成
trade libel 商業誹謗

『肆』 title，在法律上，是什麼意思，怎麼翻譯

在法律文本中，title通常有以下幾種含義：（1）權利；（2）頭銜，職位；（3）所有權；（4）契約，文書等。
例句一 權利
The full title to the Shares, free and clear of any and Encumbrances, and the full right to vote for the Shares shall be transferred to the Buyer at the Completion Date.
不附帶任何權利負擔的股份的完整權利以及股份的全部投票權應當在交割日轉讓給買方。
例句二 頭銜，職位
He was given the title of assistant manager.
他被授予經理助理的職位。
例句三 所有權 title transfer所有權轉讓
The Vendor shall procure that the Purchaser acquires good title to the Shares free from all charges, liens,encumbrances, equities and claims whatsoever.
賣方應保證買方獲得不容置疑的股份所有權，且該等股份不帶任何押記、留置、負擔、權益和主張。
例句四 契約，文書
the instrument (such as a deed) that is evidence of a right 證明權利的文書（如契約 ）例：title document契約文書

『伍』 一詞 有多種翻譯 但在法律英語中「under」和「

在法律翻譯中，"under"通常與協議，合同，法律，法規等連用。若與協議、合同等連用，譯為」在......項下"；若與法律、法規等連用，可譯為"根據、依據、按照"等。

『陸』 Speech or Debate Clause在法律英語中應該怎麼翻譯

是美國憲法的一個條款，目的是為了保護兩院議員自由發言權，可以翻譯成議員言論責任豁免條款。

『柒』 法律英語問題

在標題18的第2340款

subsection是法律文書的分項。
如：請翻到第5款，b項：Please turn to section 5, subsection b.

如有不明白之處，請消息聯系。

『捌』 法律英語中"where"一般怎麼翻譯

一般講where在法律英語中通常是當.....什麼樣的情況發生時 1是表時間 相當於 when 當....時 2是表狀態發生 相當於 if

漢語說法是：什麼什麼的，表示if 比如 where a party fails to performs....

『玖』 急需幫忙！法律英語論文的Title

O. J. Simpson murder case
辛普森殺妻案

The O. J. Simpson murder case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in history,[1] in which O. J. Simpson, former American football star and actor, was brought to trial for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 after a lengthy trial, the longest jury trial in California history.[2]

Simpson hired a high-profile defense team led by Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey. Los Angeles County believed it had a solid prosecution case, but Cochran created in the minds of the jury the belief that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence (then a relatively new type of evidence in trials),[3] including that the blood-sample evidence had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians.[4] Cochran and the defense team also alleged other misconct by the Los Angeles Police Department. The televising of the lengthy trial riveted national attention on the dramatic case. By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences between most blacks and most whites in terms of their assessment of Simpson's guilt.[5]

Later, both the Brown and Goldman families sued Simpson for damages in a civil trial, which has a lower standard of proof for determining responsibility.[citation needed] On February 5, 1997, the jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown. In its conclusions, the jury effectively found Simpson liable for the death of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.[6] On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him.

這個案子很經典，上面的一段是wiki上的英文案例，你可以找一些關於這個的中文資料，然後選擇一個角度（比如種族歧視與陪審團制度的矛盾、毒樹之果原則、媒體和輿論與司法公正的矛盾等等），或者一篇參考的中文文章（很多中國的法律人也會研究這個案子，發表一些觀點），自己寫或者翻譯一篇英文論文出來就是了。

下面引用一段英文資料，有個人在www.lawyers.com提問，為什麼法院在刑事訴訟中判決辛普森無罪，但是在民事訴訟中又判決他賠償自己妻子死亡賠償金。 Jeralyn Merritt對這個問題進行了簡略的回答。

我想你大一的論文，字數要求不會太多，所以參考一下他這段答復吧。如果字數不夠就把上面wiki的資料加一些進去,簡單的交待一下案情。

Q. I am a high school government student, and I have a question that has been bothering me that my teacher refuses to answer. In the O.J. Simpson case I know that the state jury did not find him guilty on the charge of murder, but the federal court did on the charge of wrongful death. What is the difference and why were they able to do that?

-- Geni

A. O.J. Simpson was charged with first degree murder in the state court in California. The jury found him "Not Guilty." A "not guilty" verdict means the state failed to prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in all criminal prosecutions. Criminal cases are brought on behalf of the citizens of a particular state or federal district, not by the victims or their families.
After O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal case, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman sued him in the state (not federal) court in California for wrongfully causing their deaths. Civil lawsuits for wrongful death are tried for money damages, not to put the defendant in prison. Civil cases are brought in the name of indivials, not in the name of the State.

Different evidence was introced in the O.J. Simpson civil and criminal trials. For example, although O.J. Simpson denied it, evidence was presented in the civil trial that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that matched shoeprints left at the murder scene.

O.J. Simpson exercised his constitutional right against self-incrimination and chose not to testify in the criminal trial. All defendants in criminal cases have this right. In the civil trial, O.J. no longer had such a right because he had been found not guilty of murder and could not be tried again for it. He had to testify when the opposing side called him as a witness. Thus, the jury in the civil case got to hear O.J's testimony while the criminal jury did not.

In the criminal case, the jury got to see that the glove left at the scene of the crime did not fit O.J. Simpson. This experiment was not repeated for the civil jury. The jury in the criminal trial got a far stronger portrayal of the problems with the DNA and other scientific evidence in the case, and the poor management of the crime scene, than did the civil jury. And the criminal jury got to hear the false testimony of Los Angeles police officer Mark Furman, who later admitted lying and pleaded guilty to perjury.

Finally, the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases is different. In criminal cases, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." There is also a presumption of innocence that stays with the defendant until and unless the jury returns a guilty verdict. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," which essentially means "more likely than not," or put another way, proof by 51% or more.

The jury's verdict in the civil case was not that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder, but that he was liable for (which essentially means responsible for causing) the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

In light of the different evidence presented, burdens of proof and ultimate issues the juries were called upon to decide, the verdicts in the criminal and civil trials were not really all that inconsistent.

-- Jeralyn Merritt

『拾』 法律英語中的「等」要怎麼翻譯

一般情況用省略號或者用etc，不使用and so on