0

"Can security be granted by an entity which is neither a borrower nor a guarantor? Yes, The third party may be granted if . . ..“

I don't understand what this sentence means. Who grants whom? To my understanding, the third party should be someone who grants, and is not granted.

  • 2
    Where are you getting this stuff? It all looks like bad translation jobs. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 17 '14 at 9:54
  • 3
    Looks like a question for a lawyer, who would undoubtedly want to see much more of the surrounding text. – WS2 Jul 17 '14 at 10:04
  • 4
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is requesting a legal opinion about legalese, for which an actual attorney is always required. – tchrist Jul 17 '14 at 18:00
  • 1
    You're question should read, "Who grants to whom?" This happens to further illustrate that you are correct to be concerned about this flawed text. Can you post the rest of the quoted sentence? – Henry74 Jul 17 '14 at 18:38
1

CAVEAT/DISCLAIMER: THE ANSWERER TO THIS QUESTION CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, IF ANY, OF THE OP WHO ACTS UPON AND/OR HOLDS THE ANSWERER ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. THE ANSWER IS MEANT TO ELUCIDATE A QUESTION REGARDING SYNTAX, VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR, AND PUNCTUATION. IT IS NEITHER TO BE CONSTRUED IN ANY WAY AS LEGAL ADVICE, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY APPLICABILITY TO ANY SUBJECT OTHER THAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE & USAGE.

Your sentence is an example of "legalese," and frankly, it is not worded very well!

The one doing the granting is an unspecified person, institution, or "entity." Normally, the guarantor of the loan can be the borrower or someone else (as when an individual has someone co-sign for the loan, and this person is on the hook for paying back the loan if the borrower defaults).

The person or institution (e.g., a bank) making the loan is the one doing the granting. This fact is implied in the sentence as you've copied it. The word may also implies there are certain criteria which must be met in order for this "entity" to vouch for the borrower.

Who or what this third party might be--well, I haven't a clue, though a lawyer might.

| improve this answer | |
  • I totally agree with you. Hence to our understanding, the second part of this scentence should be "The third party may grant if..." i.e. It should be an active voice rather than passive, am I right? – Eric Kao Jul 17 '14 at 13:56
  • 1
    Really, giving legal advice is outside our writ here. You should consult a lawyer practicing in the jurisdiction where this document is to be executed. – John Lawler Jul 17 '14 at 14:51
  • @JohnLawler: OP wasn't asking for legal advice but for the analysis of a sentence. In future, however, I shall endeavor to attach in bold print a caveat/disclaimer as follows: THE ANSWERER TO THIS QUESTION CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, IF ANY, OF THE OP WHO ACTS UPON AND/OR HOLDS THE ANSWERER ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. THE ANSWER IS MEANT TO ELUCIDATE A QUESTION REGARDING SYNTAX, VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR, AND PUNCTUATION. IT IS NEITHER TO BE CONSTRUED IN ANY WAY AS LEGAL ADVICE, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY APPLICABILITY TO ANY SUBJECT OTHER THAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE & USAGE. Don – rhetorician Jul 17 '14 at 17:42
  • 1
    Analysis of the grammar used in legal documents is not a matter for language specialists, but rather of judges, and those who know how judges think, namely lawyers. Legal English does not follow normal English rules for definiteness, repetition, conjunction, reference and coreference, indirect discourse, adverbial placement, and many other syntactic phenomena. It also deploys archaic syntax, lexical items, and idioms that have not been spontaneously spoken by a native speaker in centuries. As I said, it's not within our writ here. – John Lawler Jul 17 '14 at 17:58
  • 1
    @JohnLawler: I couldn't disagree with you more, but I shan't debate you. I will point out, however, that three assumptions of yours may or may not be valid: first, the OP is quoting from a legal document; second, the OP wants something more (viz., advice) than to be able to understand the verbiage; and third, the OP is necessarily looking for advice about the verbiage in question. If you want to have the last word, feel free to have it now. You can even recommend my answer be stricken from the record, so to speak, and I will harbor neither ill will nor hurt feelings. Don – rhetorician Jul 17 '14 at 21:33
0

Without more context, the second sentence should almost certainly read "Security may be granted by a third party if..." Parties grant. Things are granted

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.