français term (edited): opposer un refus de participation

Notes:

1. has come before on ProZ and not really bizarre as per discussion entries, though does sound odd, literally in English. '...the manufacturer is refusing to refuse to cover the costs! ...' - the constructor is not relying on anyone else's refusal, but its own.

2. opposer ought to trigger a Lord Denning-spawned species of 'estoppel', contractual, promissory or equitable ('in pais).

3. a plain-vanilla 'rejection', as in the first example sentence, skirts around the procedural aspect of the 'estoppel' pleaded by the constructeur, rather than the lessor or owner.

4. set up is - used to be - a stock UK notarial rendering for opposer cf. raise a defence; plead (in defence) reply; *object*; set up (against); also, opposer un acte: rely on a document made by the other party, FHS Bridge.

5. 'A new formal objections process has been introduced under which a person who has been required to pay a development contribution can object...'

6. Compare and contrast a demurrer (a procedural objection) and, as some ProZ regulars might be aware of from my previous intimations, a favourite at the Bar of E&W: 'Definition: a pleading that admits an opponent's point but denies that it is a relevant or valid.'

I'm assuming that the "le constructeur oppose..." phrase appears in the text as shown in AT's post. In other words, either it's in a list of bullet points, or it's in a list of items that AT helpfully broke into bullet points to make his post more readable.

Assuming that's the case, this phrase is the third example of a situation in which the hirer of the vehicle must pay for any breakdown out of his own pocket. So, it means that if the manufacturer ("constructeur") refuses to pay for repairs as a result of either of the two preceding situations or due to the exclusions, then the hirer of the car must pay for those repairs.

So we'd just use the present indicative, as in the other two examples.

And "oppose un refus" is just a legalistic way to say formally reject or object, declare a refusal, etc. It means officially or formally saying no.

So: "the manufacturer declares that it refuses any [financial] participation as a result of the aforementioned omissions or of the exclusions defined by it" [or "by the latter"].

See discussion.

Yes, slightly odd use of oppose, but the context pretty much seems to dictate the interpretation. One meaning of opposer being "raise (an objection)", as you know.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2022-12-03 14:51:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In light of Eliza Hall's answer, it may (possibly) be better to say "will refuse...". The imperative "shall" of contractual documents should probably only be applied to the parties to the contract.

It is not impossible that the manufacturer is in fact a party to this rental agreement, but this seems unlikely.

...