0

This claim for damages would result in a fruitless proof in the liquidation of the company.

Can someone please tell me what 'proof' means in the sentence I quoted as above?

The dictionary meaning of 'proof' as a noun is 'a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true', however, I don't think it fits into the meaning of 'proof' in the upper sentence.

Thank you in advance.

5
  • 1
    You might do better asking this over on Law as I suspect that the meaning in civil law might well be different to the standard English definition. Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 8:30
  • 1
    The Full OED gives this as definition #8: Striving, effort; an attempt or endeavour. Obsolete. For which they cite an example by Hobbes (1629) They thought this accident (especially being their first proofe by sea) very much against reason. Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 15:42
  • are we to believe a 21st century law text is using obsolete language Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 16:01
  • The use of 'flawed proof' shows that some definitions of 'proof' don't seem to insist that 'if there's any proof that something is true, it's true'. Some, it would seem, broaden 'proof' to mean 'a [genuine] attempt to show the truth of something'. Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 18:38
  • Sounds like, win or not, the claimant is hosed because of the liquidation. Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 22:13

1 Answer 1

2

The fuller context (from Google books) is that of international law.

Per the Free Legal Dictionary, proof is

The establishment of a fact by the use of evidence.

(link)

This definition (and other, similar ones in the same dictionary) seems to fit the context and is close to the definition you refer to.

This proof turns out to be fruitless. Not all establishments of facts at a trial are fruitful.

I don't think it's clear why or how this proof (establishment of fact) "result[ed] in a fruitless proof in the liquidation of the company." Maybe someone with keener reading ability of this legal text can help.

But the usage of proof seems to be that of the legal dictionary, which, again, is not far from what you cite.

2
  • 1
    @ Thank you. I guess it's because the claimant wouldn't get paid because, even if you win the case, the respondent company which is in the process of liquidation would have no money to pay.
    – user88310
    Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 6:53
  • @user88310 Quite so. The most certain thing in pursuing debt is that if the debtor has no money, no matter how elegant or deserving your claim, and no matter what "proof" you supply, and what judgments you are granted by the court, you will receive nothing. And I suspect it applies everywhere.
    – WS2
    Commented Nov 16, 2019 at 15:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .