Charlotte Allen (asker) Feb 7, 2006:

Thanks to everyone for getting their brains to work on this one. In the end I sort of stumbled across the answer elsewhere, but I gave some points to Bourth because he is right that this does mean 'receipts' in the ordinary sense of the word, and because I wanted to get an entry into the glossary to 'counteract' the earlier, erroneous one.

Sylvia Smith Feb 7, 2006:

I see. Thank your for the detailed explanation, Charlotte. Always a learning experience!

Charlotte Allen (asker) Feb 7, 2006:

Sylvia: Now that's really weird, because I've been searching for both 'deniers' and 'quittances' in Kudoz, and didn't find the reference you found. Having said that, I think in that case the answer was a likely-sounding guess, and is not really accurate. I also think you're misinterpreting the bit about 'imputer les versements'. I'm 99% sure it's talking about payments made on account by the party at fault BEFORE judgement is rendered, in view of the possible outcome of the case. However, the quote implies that the injured party might be tempted to claim that this money had gone towards settling some other debt they were owed by the defaulting party (unconnected with the case), or that they had put it towards disputed interest owing or legal costs, and that the main lump sum of damages was still due (and thus still incurring interest!). For this reason, this quote suggests that the Court should always explicitly state that X amount has already been paid on account, and reduce the amount of damages accordingly, rather than relying on the 'quittances' to prove the payment on account. Otherwise, there's a risk of the parties having to come back before the 'juge de l'ex�cution et de recours' to resolve the dispute over whether the damages have actually been paid or not.

Charlotte Allen (asker) Feb 7, 2006:

Or are we? It is not that the applicant OWES the defendant anything, necessarily, it is that the defendant has ALREADY PAID something to the applicant, and presumably the 'quittances' refers to receipts that the applicant gave to the defendant in respect of the sum already paid, and which the defendant now submits as proof that money has already changed hands. But how to express this?

Charlotte Allen (asker) Feb 7, 2006:

Just found this... "Il convient, chaque fois qu'il est possible, d'�viter les condamnations "en deniers ou quittances". Il ne faut pas perdre de vue, en effet, qu'une telle formule peut �tre source de difficult�s, de contestations devant le juge de l'ex�cution et de recours contre sa d�cision, le cr�ancier pr�tendant, par exemple, imputer les versements effectu�s � une cr�ance autre que celle vis�e par la condamnation ou les imputer d'abord au paiement de frais ou d'int�r�ts contest�s. Lorsque le d�biteur all�gue avoir vers� des acomptes, il convient que la cour d'appel les mentionne et les d�duise de la cr�ance, m�me si cela devait retarder quelque peu la cl�ture de l'instruction ou conduire � la r�ouverture des d�bats. La qualit� de la d�cision et son efficacit� en d�pendront."

I suspect it may be referring either to 'payments into court', the practice of paying a certain sum to the court at the start of a case, which carries certain benefits for the defendant, or to payments which the defendant may have made 'on account' to the applicant. The above quote seems to be saying that if any such payments have been made, the applicant must normally use these first to off-set the sum due under the court case, and not apply them to any other debts which may exist.

So we are back to this notion of 'off-sets' or 'setting off'.