This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
Ausschlusstatbestand
Satzanlage

Glossary entry

German term or phrase:

Antragstellerinnen zu 1) bis 3)

English translation:

1st, 2nd and 3rd claimant/petitioner/plaintiff

Added to glossary by Carolyn Brice
Feb 23, 2010 06:51
14 yrs ago
4 viewers *
German term

Antragstellerinnen zu 1) bis 3)

German to English Law/Patents Law (general)
Die letztlich entscheidende Frage ist, ob die durch die Antragsgegnerin an die Antragstellerinnen zu 1) bis 3) gelieferte Ware mangelhaft war.

This is a claim made by a company that the goods delivered were not suitabel for the intended purpose. The document does not specify more than one party on each side, which is why i am slightly confused. TIA
Proposed translations (English)
5 +4 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimant/petitioner/plaintiff
3 (´delivered to the claimants...) re. 1) through 3)

Discussion

Monika Elisabeth Sieger Feb 23, 2010:
@David You are absolutely right. At least for British court papers!
Submit your solution as an answer and I will agree!
David Wright Feb 23, 2010:
Birgit - I'm afraid I must disagree on that one; I've been translating court-related material for 30 years and Antragsteller zu 1) etc is beyond doubt the only way of stating 1st claimant. I have never ever seen Antragsteller 1)
Birgit Gläser Feb 23, 2010:
"zu" being the operative word Nothing against numbering the claimants, but the "zu" is the operative word making this into a reference. "zu 1)" is usualle "Re. (item/position/question) 1)". Were it not a cross-reference it would read "Antragstellerinnen 1) bis 3)".
Carolyn Brice (asker) Feb 23, 2010:
Duh! I missed the et. al. next to the name of the claimant! Which means there are of course other claimants! But essentially my question was really how to word it in English, which David Wright answered for me: 1st claimant, 2nd claimant, 3rd claimant, or 1st to 3d claimants.
Birgit Gläser Feb 23, 2010:
Most likely three sections in the brief My reading is rather that the plaintiff's lawyer raised three issues/sections in his brief and that the claimants' lawyer now needs to respond to those counter-claims. Apparently the claimants claim the goods to be defective, maybe the plaintiff coutered that they did not handle it properly and broke it. But there is nothing to suggest that there are three claimants!
transatgees Feb 23, 2010:
This seems thoroughly mixed up to me! In your place I would ask the client for clarification. This would not be the first lawyer's letter with mistakes in it!
Carolyn Brice (asker) Feb 23, 2010:
Thanks David! That's what I wasn't sure of!
David Wright Feb 23, 2010:
I always use the 1st claimant, 2nd claimant etc, or, here, 1st to 3rd claimants
Carolyn Brice (asker) Feb 23, 2010:
My question really concerns the wording I agree that there are indeed three claimants, but how do I word it when it says Antragstellerinnen zu 1) bis 3), do I say the three claimants, and then the claimant in the first/second/third part when it talks about them individually?
David Wright Feb 23, 2010:
That would make it pretty obvious that there are indeed three plaintiffs/applicants/petitioners. It could be that the action is being filed not only by the company but also by persons within the company (directors etc). I agre though that it looks very odd
Carolyn Brice (asker) Feb 23, 2010:
Yet more: In dem Rechtsstreit
ABC (one company)
vs.
XYZ (one company)
Carolyn Brice (asker) Feb 23, 2010:
More info: XXX (lawyers) bedanken wir uns für die antragsgemäß bis einschließlich 08.02.2010 gewährte Fristverlängerung und nehmen zu dem Schriftsatz der Antragstellerinnen zu 1) bis 3) vom 28.12.2009 wie folgt Stellung:
Birgitt Olsen Feb 23, 2010:
Ah, but now I doubt myself! It could be the items ... It's just weird the way 'zugelieferte' has been split.
Birgitt Olsen Feb 23, 2010:
If the document does not specify more than one party on each side, then this sentence is contradictory insofar as it speaks of 'Antragstellerinnen' --> more than one female claimant.

Grammatically this sentence indicates that three claimants are involved.
Carolyn Brice (asker) Feb 23, 2010:
That's the thing... I don't have that information. This is a letter from a lawyer discussing the various questions raised by the claimant(s).
Andreas Weirich Feb 23, 2010:
It would be interesting... ... to know WHAT is listed under Nos 1 to 3 (to confirm David's idea...)
David Wright Feb 23, 2010:
Well it could be that the goods supplied are listed under Nos 1 to 3. Perhaps a native of German could confirm whether that reading is possible.

Proposed translations

+4
4 hrs
Selected

1st, 2nd and 3rd claimant/petitioner/plaintiff

After all the discussion below (which I found fascinating and fun, by the way!)
Peer comment(s):
agree Michael Sieger : Spot-on!
1 hr
Thanks
agree Derek Gill Franßen
2 hrs
Thanks
agree Paul Skidmore
4 hrs
agree Sabine Akabayov, PhD
6 hrs
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
2 hrs

(´delivered to the claimants...) re. 1) through 3)

Oops, forgot the suggestion above, so might as well put in an answer. In my view two possible option: 3 product were delivered and/or the plaintiff's lawyer raised three counter-claims. In any case the brief will contain sections 1), 2) and 3). Numbering is quite common in legal texts as it makes references easier.

Thus lacking any further information I would just leave the numbers as is and the reader (who will presumably be in possession of the whole string of correspondence) can make the right assumption.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search