АГЕНТ принимает на себя обязательство делькредере и должен возмещать ПРИНЦИПАЛУ полностью или частично невыплаченные суммы, которые ПРИНЦИПАЛ вправе получить от XXXX и которые не были выплачены по причинам, за которые ПРИНЦИПАЛ ответственности не несет.

Коллега предлагает следующий перевод:

The AGENT shall undertake a del credere obligation, and shall reimburse the PRINCIPAL for the amounts unpaid, fully or partially, which the PRINCIPAL would be entitled to receive from Tourists and which have not been paid because of any reasons not controlled by the PRINCIPAL.

А я что-то во временах запуталась со всеми этими shall be- have been……

АГЕНТ принимает на себя обязательство делькредере и должен

нужно shall в начале предложения?

Она считает, что нужно, я считаю, что нет, т.е. должно быть undertakes , а вот дальше shall

за которые ПРИНЦИПАЛ ответственности не несет. shall not be responsible ? not controlled by the PRINCIPAL мне кажется, несколько другое

would be entitled to receive from XXXX and which have not been paid because вот это в данном контексте правило согласования выдерживает? Что-то я сама себя запутала окончательно.

The AGENT undertakes a del credere obligation, and must reimburse the PRINCIPAL for the amount unpaid, fully or partially, which the PRINCIPAL is entitled to receive from Tourists and which has not been paid for the reasons beyond the PRINCIPAL's control .

beyond - это хорошо. Подумаю.

because of any reasons not controlled by the PRINCIPAL = for reasons beyond the PRINCIPAL's control (если использовать это выражение) (впрочем, AMOR уже ответил, а я не прочитал)

Амора не слушайте.

"… which have not been paid for reasons beyond the control of the PRINCIPAL."

beyond, control - подходит для форс-мажора, у вас другой смысл.

Ага, лучше слушать тех, кому 40 лет назад преподаватель в институте сказал, что везде надо ставить "шелл".

Use “must” not “shall” to impose requirements. “Shall” is ambiguous, and rarely occurs in everyday conversation. The legal community is moving to a strong preference for “must” as the clearest way to express a requirement or obligation.

..................

Despite the ambiguity of the word shall, the majority of agreements, contracts and legal forms continue to use the word shall. Instead, these documents should be drafted or revised to use must, may, will or should.

....................

In most basic contracts, I recommend using "will" to create obligations, as long as you are careful to be sure any given usage can't be read as merely describing future events. I'm generally against "shall" because it is harder to use correctly and it is archaic.

.......................

“Shall” has three strikes against it.

First, lawyers regularly misuse it to mean something other than “has a duty to.” It has become so corrupted by misuse that it has no firm meaning.

Second—and related to the first—it breeds litigation. There are 76 pages in “Words and Phrases” (a legal reference) that summarize hundreds of cases interpreting “shall.”

Third, nobody uses “shall” in common speech. It’s one more example of unnecessary lawyer talk. Nobody says, “You shall finish the project in a week.”

For all these reasons, “must” is a better choice, and the change has already started to take place. The new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for instance, use “must,” not “shall.”

Prof. Joe Kimble, Thomas Cooley Law School

........................

“Must” is now being extensively used

in the legislation of… Australia and at least three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba) that have amended their Interpretation Acts to say that “must” is to be interpreted as imperative.”

Recommendation

“Must” may be used to create requirements and prohibitions. However, prohibitions should be drafted in the form of “X must not”, rather than “no X must”.

Drafters should not use “must” and “shall” together in the same Act or regulation. It could raise questions about whether different meanings are intended.”

Justice Canada’s Legislative Services Branch

......................

Delete every shall.

“Shall” isn’t plain English. . . But legal drafters use “shall” incessantly. They learn it by osmosis in law school, and the lesson is fortified in law practice.

Ask a drafter what “shall” means, and you’ll hear that it’s a mandatory word—opposed to the permissive “may”. Although this isn’t a lie, it’s a gross inaccuracy. . . Often, it’s true, “shall” is mandatory. . . Yet the word frequently bears other meanings—sometimes even masquerading as a synonym of “may”. . . In just about every jurisdiction, courts have held that “shall” can mean not just “must” and “may”, but also “will” and “is”. Increasingly, official drafting bodies are recognizing the problem. . .Many . . drafters have adopted the “shall-less” style. . . You should do the same.

Bryan Garner, Legal Writing in Plain English, 2001, pp 105-06.

For a good discussion of “shall” and “must”, see Bryan Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed. 1995), pages 939-942.

по причинам, за которые ПРИНЦИПАЛ ответственности не несет - каков оригинал, таков и перевод :)

===

Кстати, да. Но я лишь привлек внимание топикстартера к вопросу использования «shall» в данном контексте.

"Use “must” not “shall” to impose requirements. “Shall” is ambiguous, and rarely occurs in everyday conversation. The legal community is moving to a strong preference for “must” as the clearest way to express a requirement or obligation." (from an official website of the United States government)

Открыл первый попавшийся договор, раздел "Definitions and Interpretation" :

"Document of Title" : each Bill of Lading and each DAA and "Documents of Title" shall be construed accordingly;

any "Lender" means and includes that Lender's successors, assigns and transferees under this Agreement which are for the time being participating in the Facility and "Lenders" shall be construed accordingly;

Из другого раздела:

Obligation to repay : The Borrower shall repay the Facility in accordance with Clause ____.

Из договора, составленного другой фирмой (подозреваю, что по тому же шаблону):

“Company” shall have the meaning first given above.

“Dollars” and “$” shall mean United States dollars.

Из другого раздела договора:

Under no circumstances shall the aggregate nominal amount paid by the Company in connection with such transfer exceed ten thousand Dollars ($10,000). Upon completion of such transfer to the satisfaction of ХХХ in its sole and absolute discretion, ХХХ shall transfer to the Shareholder Trust [_________] shares in the Company.

🤷‍♂️

У вас своя точка зрения, переубеждать вас я не буду; хочу лишь сказать, что, живя в Британии, имею дело с различными юридическими документами и официальными письмами (циркулярами) на регулярной основе (банки, работодатели, муниципалитет и т. д.), и в этих документах употребляются как "shall", так и "must" и "will" (учтите, что они не являются взаимозаменяемыми).

Вот цитаты из прошедших через мои руки в 2022 году писем и соглашений:

MORTGAGE PRODUCT TRANSFER OFFER

"… If the property or the additional security is realised (for example, if the property is sold by us or another person with a mortgage or security over it), we shall apply the money we receive in the following order: …".

NDA

"… Each party agrees that the terms of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, until terminated in writing by both parties, or 3 years from the date of this agreement, or the execution of another agreement between the Parties containing confidentiality provisions which are declared specifically to replace and supersede this Agreement.

If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be unenforceable for any reason, such unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement …".

SERVICES AGREEMENT

"… The Supplier shall supply the Services to the Customer from the Services Start Date in accordance with the Contract.

In performing the Services, the Supplier shall meet, and time is of the essence as to, any performance dates specified in Schedule 1 …".