 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010"settling a dispute to"
Just had to translate this as part of a translation course: "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute to one or more neutral persons nominated by the disputants..." Can this be correct? Sounds odd to me. I assume the 'to' should be 'by'?  SignaturePablo > Just had to translate this as part of a translation course: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can this be correct? Sounds odd to me. I assume the 'to' should be > 'by'? Or "settling" could be "submitting". The version you suggest, with "by" instead of "to" still sounds a little awkward, because you are left with "the act ... by", and "act" is not a verbal noun. I would prefer "... the settling of a dispute by ..." or "the act of settling a dispute, undertaken by ...". Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:27:33 -0500 from CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: > > Just had to translate this as part of a translation course: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > prefer "... the settling of a dispute by ..." or "the act of settling > a dispute, undertaken by ...". I posted my answer before seeing yours, but I like yours better: "submitting a dispute to". SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Just had to translate this as part of a translation course: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Can this be correct? Sounds odd to me. I assume the 'to' should be > 'by'? I agree with your assumption. On 20 Feb 2010, Pablo wrote > Just had to translate this as part of a translation course: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can this be correct? Sounds odd to me. I assume the 'to' should > be 'by'? Either that, or "the act of submitting a dispute to one or more neutral persons". Unless it's "binding arbitration", the act of sending a dispute to arbitration doesn't, in itself, necessarily mean that it will be settled by the process. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:29:44 GMT from HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: > On 20 Feb 2010, Pablo wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sending a dispute to arbitration doesn't, in itself, necessarily mean > that it will be settled by the process. As I learned the words, arbitration *is* binding: "non-binding arbitration" is called mediation. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:29:44 GMT from HVS ><usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >As I learned the words, arbitration *is* binding: "non-binding >arbitration" is called mediation. This seems to depend on which legal jurisdiction is being considered. For instance: http://www.thelienzone.com/articles/Nonbinding_Aribitration_Minefield.htm refers to: The 2009 Florida Statutes Title V JUDICIAL BRANCH Chapter 44 MEDIATION ALTERNATIVES TO JUDICIAL ACTION 44.103 Court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration.-- (1) Court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration shall be conducted according to the rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court. (2) A court, pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court, may refer any contested civil action filed in a circuit or county court to nonbinding arbitration. .... .... SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:29:44 GMT from HVS > ><use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > >> > Can this be correct? I don't think so. > >> > Sounds odd to me. I assume the 'to' should > >> > be 'by'? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > refer any contested civil action filed in a circuit or county > court to nonbinding arbitration. This suggests that the author of the messed-up sentence may have been thinking of "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute by referring it to..." -- Jerry Friedman "Pablo": >>>>> "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute to one or more >>>>> neutral persons nominated by the disputants..." >>>>> Can this be correct? Jerry Friedman: > I don't think so. I agree. (Some discussion of whether arbitration is binding.) > This suggests that the author of the messed-up sentence may have been > thinking of "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute by referring > it to..." But that's not right, and the passages I didn't requote don't suggest it. The arbitration takes place *after* the dispute is referred. In other words, arbitration is the process of choosing how to settle a dispute, performed by one or more neutral persons nominated for that purpose by the disputants. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Actor sent to jail for not finishing sentence msb@vex.net | --Knoxville, TN, News-Sentinel, 1989-01-21 My text in this article is in the public domain. >"Pablo": >>>>>> "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute to one or more [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >performed by one or more neutral persons nominated for that purpose by >the disputants. The rules relating to arbitration vary between jurisdictions. According to this webpage "non-binding arbitration" is not something recognised in law in the UK. It is a dummy-run: a "trial trial": http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/Non-binding-arbitration.html Non binding arbitration is a form of arbitration which produces a decision (or award, as it is termed in arbitration) which has no binding power on the parties. The parties therefore have a choice whether to accept the award or proceed to litigation. Non binding arbitration does not exist under this heading in the UK. The Arbitration Act (1996) has been drafted to empower arbitration tribunals and was intended to provide a legitimate, enforceable and dependable alternative to litigation. Arbitration in the UK is therefore always binding, and appeals are only permitted in certain circumstances. The rationale behind having non binding arbitration is that each party can have a chance to examine its case in front of a legal expert and see (to a certain extent) how successful it will be. However, as the award is not binding, it is likely that a party which goes through the process will decide at the end to proceed to litigation, and hope to learn from the argumentative mistakes it made in what it can consider the ‘practice round’. It is exactly this type of gamesmanship that parliament wanted to avoid when legislating the Arbitration Act. Mediation is not arbitration: http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/mediation.htm What is mediation? Quite simply its a way of resolving disputes without the need to go to court. Sounds fantastic and very simple and in essence it is. If both parties in a dispute agree then a trained mediator, who is an impartial third party, guides the parties to a settlement on which they both agree. The mediator does not impose a decision or attempt to judge the merits of the case. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > "Pablo": >>>>>> "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute to one or more [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > dispute, performed by one or more neutral persons nominated for that > purpose by the disputants. Yes, you are right, arbitration is what the arbitrator does. Other parties refer the dispute to the arbitrator. It might not even be the diputants themselves who get to choose the arbitrator; it can be referred by a court or prescribed by regulation. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:17:52 +0100 from Pablo <noone@nowhere.net>: > Just had to translate this as part of a translation course: > > "Arbitration is the act of settling a dispute to one or more neutral persons > nominated by the disputants..." > > Can this be correct? Sounds odd to me. I assume the 'to' should be 'by'? I think it needs more than just a prepositional substitution. Arbitration is the act of submitting a dispute for settlement by one or more neutral persons ... (I think it could be improved further, because the arbitrators don't really settle the dispute; they judge it or rule on it or something of the sort.) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.