Attorney DC Bar May 17, 2013:

'La preuve' often means evidence, not proof, and I read 'la portée de la preuve' to mean the reliability of that evidence, which is that of an original copy. I don't think they are talking about 'legally binding' or even less 'enforceable'...it's not about an agreement, it's about information. Information isn't usually thought of as 'binding' or 'enforceable'... they're talking about the reliability of the information when it is sought to be admitted into evidence, in a proceeding...and they are saying the court will treat it just as if it were an original hardcopy... if that could have been admitted, then so will this...

Attorney DC Bar May 17, 2013:

'La preuve' often means evidence, not proof, and I read 'la portée de la preuve' to mean the reliability of that evidence, which is that of an original copy. I don't think they are talking about 'legally binding' or even less 'enforceable'...it's not about an agreement, it's about information. Information isn't usually thought of as 'binding' or 'enforceable'... they're talking about the reliability of the information when it is sought to be admitted into evidence, in a proceeding...and they are saying the court will treat it just as if it were an original hardcopy... if that could have been admitted, then so will this...

Vicky James (asker) May 17, 2013:

Thanks for those last two points @Nikki - I hadn't considered this, but it does seem as though we are making assumptions if we take it to mean binding or legally enforceable, as opposed to having the "same effect in law" (which may or may not be binding, depending on what the info is!). @rufinus - the idea of reliabilty ties in with Nikki's idea, but I'm not sure about "reliability of the evidence", as it's a bit of a leap from "information" to "evidence"... Still musing over this one!

Attorney DC Bar May 17, 2013:

reliability A thought: Sounds like 'portée' here is more in the nature of 'reliability'. The sentence you added says that certain info from the website will be considered 'authoritative' (feront foi), unless Donor can prove the contrary, in writing. 'The reliability of the evidence'...? They're saying that certain info on the website will be treated as if it were a signed, hardcopy original. Reliability is an issue where the parties are arguing over the admissibility of evidence. See, e.g. "The general basis for the admissibility of documentary evidence has not radically changed under the Evidence Act 2011 as documentary evidence is still mostly admissible where the original hard copy of such a document is produced in a Court of Law. See Section 83(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.

The Evidence Act 2011 has however expanded this basic general rule to enable the admission of electronically generated documents under certain conditions which are enumerated hereunder."http://www.proshareng.com/articles/2437/Legal-Alert--May-201...

Nikki Scott-Despaigne May 16, 2013:

I kept thinking about "burden of proof" here and the choice of the term "preuve" is getting us all thinking about proof, evidence etc. I think that's all heavy-going for the context. The phrase is basically serving to affirm the opposite of standard phrases such as : for information only, non-contractual. I am unsure whether it is actually going as far as saying that the information shall be binding. I have no idea from the context provided whether the intention is to go as far as saying the information set out on the website is binding. It does however infer that the info is to be considered to have the same weight as an original. I feel as though I ought to be suggesting : "The information on X's website shall be considered binding", but that is not what the original states. There is no mention of legal or contractual weight.

Vicky James (asker) May 16, 2013:

Thanks Linda That reads very well!

AllegroTrans May 16, 2013:

@ Linda your suggestion works well and you should post it as an answer

Linda Watts (X) May 16, 2013:

Suggestion Could the following work, Vicky? "The information provided via the website 'shall have the same effect in law' as that of an original..."

Vicky James (asker) May 16, 2013:

Les éléments tels que le moment de la réception ou de l’émission, ainsi que la qualité des données reçues feront foi par priorité telles que figurant sur le Site Internet du [nom entreprise], ou telles qu’authentifiées par les procédures informatisées du [nom entreprise] sauf à en apporter la preuve écrite et contraire par le Donateur.
La portée de la preuve des informations délivrées par le Site Internet du [nom entreprise] est celle accordée à un original au sens d’un document écrit papier, signé de manière manuscrite.

Vicky James (asker) May 16, 2013:

Apologies for lack of context It's from a set of terms and conditions. This section deals with proof of correspondence between the company (a department store gift list registry) and those contributing to the gift list.

Linda Watts (X) May 16, 2013:

Could "impact" work here, Vicky? My other question has to do with the ST term "original" - an original what?

AllegroTrans May 16, 2013:

It would be helpful to know who is saying this and for what purpose