# Laws in Multilingual Countries - The Pitfalls of Nuance **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 8, 2023, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785 "2023-07-08T20:53:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2023, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/41 "2023-07-11T13:07:23Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > > [@md-2000](#): > > > > Maybe it took some lawyer 2 months to realize “hey! Is it different in French?” > > One distinction that must be noted is that in Canada, not all laws are in English and French. > > What do I mean? Well, let’s start with the easy one: all Canadian federal laws (i.e. those passed by the federal Parliament) are in English and French. > > But provincial laws … it depends. Not every province passes laws in English and French. In fact, most don’t: I believe only Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick do. In the rest, laws are in English only. Good info. Thank you. The canoe case in the OP is a matter of interpretation of law written in both English and French. Conversely, it appears to me that the case @md-2000 refs, which was originally cited by @FinsToTheLeft in post #6 was a matter of interpretation of contract terms, not of law. Which makes me wonder _why_ two contracting corporations, both of national scope in Canada, would choose to create two language versions of their mutually negotiated arms-length deal? Isn’t one version plenty? In fact one version is often trouble enough; ISTM two is just asking for it. Is there perhaps something in the relevant code law that says, e.g. “Contracts written in English are null & void in Quebec; a French version must be provided”? Otherwise, why bother with two versions? ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2023, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/42 "2023-07-11T13:34:32Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > How do things work for the EU? Well, for patents, in the European Patent Office, an application can be filed in any of English, French or German, and the prosecution will continue in the chosen language. Once there’s agreement on the final form of the “claims” in that language, which is what defines the legal scope of the patent protection to be granted, a translation of those claims into the other two languages must be submitted before the patent issues. I’m not sure what they do if someone raises a complaint about differences in the translations, though. ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2023, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/43 "2023-07-11T15:31:36Z")
[This 2018 article](https://ejls.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/12/1_EJLS-111_van-der-Jeught.pdf) states that all language versions of legislation are authentic (p. 9), but that the European Court of Justice tends to work mostly with a few languages for comparison in interpretation (p. 13): French, English, German, and sometimes others. The author also points out that French is the internal working language of the EU (footnote 27). The article goes into much more detail on interpretation and translation issues in European Union law. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2023, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/44 "2023-07-11T15:36:29Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > The joke I recall was that they use English because the French refused to use German and the Germans refused to use French. Not sure what Brexit did to that. I’ve heard of Irish politicians who use Esperanto, because they refuse to use English, and nobody speaks Irish. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2023, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/45 "2023-07-12T01:59:04Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > How do things work for the EU? > > The joke I recall was that they use English because the French refused to use German and the Germans refused to use French. Not sure what Brexit did to that. English is still an official language of two member states (Ireland and Malta) so its formal status in the EU hasn’t changed. It’s one of the dominant working languages because it’s one of the most very common second languages — people from Estonia and Portugal are far more likely to communicate in English than they are in either Estonian or Portuguese. All legal texts are published in all 24 official languages, and at meeting of the Parliament, the Council, etc, any of the official languages may be used — there are simultaneous translation facilities on hand. Internally, the EU institutions mainly use French, German and English (the “procedural languages”). Anyone working in the institutions will need to be functionally fluent in at least two of the procedural languages. In the European Court of Justice, the language used in a case will be one of the official languages of the country in whose courts the case originated. All parties to the case must conduct the proceedings in that language, even if they are from a different member state. The judgment will be issued in that language, with a translation into French and (in time) into other official languages. For the court’s internal business, the procedural language is French. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2023, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/46 "2023-07-13T19:00:26Z")
The Irish Constitution explicitly states that the Irish version of laws has priority: Art 25: In case of conflict between the texts of a law enrolled under this section in both the official languages, the text in the national language shall prevail. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2023, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/47 "2023-07-17T02:48:12Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s the short version. If you want the long version, you need to sit through a short lecture on the federal-provincial division of powers, a ruling by the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission, a Supreme Court decision, the CRTC decision about a comma, a Federal Court of Appeal decision, and a New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Sounds fascinating. A _tour de force_ by an expert is always good stuff regardless of the topic. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Sure! > [@themapleleaf](#): > > So am I. Right, class, due to popular demand there will be an additional session tonight for extra credit. This will not be on the final exam, but you will get bonus points for attendance and questions. 1. The _Constitution Act, 1867_ divides legislative jurisdiction between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. 2. Federal jurisdiction has been held to include telephonic communications, because of the inter-provincial natures of telephones and the communications networks. 3. This jurisdiction was originally set out in the federal _Railway Act_, because telegraphs had been closely connected with railways. As time passed, telephone systems were deemed to be “railways” for certain purposes, bringing them within the regulatory system of the _Railway Act_. (Eventually Parliament passed a federal _Telecommunications Act_, which replaced the _Railway Act_ as the governing legislation.) 4. The Canadian Radio and Television Commission, or “CRTC” was given the statutory jurisdiction to regulate telephones, using the powers under the _Railway Act_ which applied to telephones _qua_ railways. 5. The CRTC issued an order that said that any public utility which had systems of “support structures” for wires had to make those structures available to telecommunications companies to string their wires. The telecos that got access to those “support structures” by this order had to pay fair compensation to the company that had the “support structures”. (Heck, let’s go with “telephone poles” from now on.) 6. Because this was a statutory right by virtue of a CRTC order, the document that assigned rights and responsibilities to the teleco and the owner of the telephone poles was set out in an appendix to the order, to be used by the parties. 7. Since the order was issued under the federal statutory authority, it was bilingual, as was the form for the terms of the access to the telephone poles, that later was in issue in _Rogers v Bell-Alliant_, the comma case. 8. Bell-Aliant was a teleco doing business in New Brunswick. It had access to the power poles of New Brunswick power, by an agreement with NB Power. 9. Rogers applied to string its wires on the power poles that Bell-Aliant had leased from NB Power. Rogers and Bell-Aliant eventually came to an understanding, as set out in the statutory tariff that the CRTC had issued as part of its order granting access to telephone poles. 10. All clear so far? 11. “But wait, Professor Piper!” one of you might say, if you’ve been paying attention, “is a power pole the same as a telephone pole?” 12. Bonus points for you, bright student! That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada eventually ruled, in an unrelated case. The federal jurisdiction only extends to _telecommunications_. It does not extend to electrical generating facilities and electrical distribution networks, nor to those “support structures” which we have been referring to by the vernacular, as “power poles”. 13. Therefore, the federal CRTC lacked statutory power to order telcos to have access to power poles (provincial). The order had to be read down as only giving a right of access to telephone poles (federal). 14. New Brunswick Power, having followed the litigation, immediately advised Bell-Aliant that it had no right to reach an agreement with Rogers for Rogers to string its wires on NB Power’s poles. Eliminating the middle-man, NB Power opened negotiations with Rogers to get that sweet, sweet fee for sharing its power poles. 15. “But nooooo!” says Rogers, waving the document (in English) that contained its rights under the former CRTC order. Aliant replies that they’re giving notice of termination under the terms of that document, because they no longer have access to NB Power’s poles. 16. Rogers says “But noooo - there’s a comma there that means you can’t end it like this!” (Narrator: and make Rogers pay lots more to NB Power than they were paying to Bell-Aliant.) 17. The parties trot off to the CRTC. It rules that as a result of the SCC decision, it no longer has jurisdiction to require Bell-Aliant to grant Rogers access to the power poles owned by NB Power, because “power poles” (provincial jurisdiction) are not “telephone poles” (federal jurisdiction). In the alternative, CRTC rules that the comma doesn’t have the meaning that Rogers is giving it, and Bell-Aliant can properly give notice of termination, since it’s lost access to the power poles. 18. Rogers says, “But wait! This isn’t a pure contract, it’s an agreement to comply with the former CRTC ruling, and the French form of the statutory agreement is just as significant!” (even though the document they’ve all been working with is in English). “We’re going to get a copy of the French version!” (Narrator: Why it would take 2 months to get a French version of a federal statutory document is a mystery.) 19. Rogers appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismisses the appeal on jurisdiction: the CRTC correctly ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction over power poles (provincial), so therefore did not have jurisdiction to rule on the dispute. To the extent the CRTC tried to interpret the statutory tariff agreement, it did not have the power to do so, since that no longer applied. The FCA declined to rule on the comma issue. 20. “But it’s both a statutory agreement and a contract!” says Rogers, and starts a contract action in the New Brunswick Queen’s Bench against Bell-Aliant. The parties make all sorts of arguments about contract law, and commas, and frustration, but the NBQB rules against Rogers: once the CRTC lost jurisdiction, its order, and the associated statutory agreement, ceased to have legal force, and Rogers had no right to access the power poles. It would have to deal directly with NB Power. 21. Rogers appeals to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, which, in lengthy reasons, says, “Too bad, so sad,” and dismisses Rogers’s appeal. The terms of the statutory tariff agreement, whether in English or French, did not apply, because it no longer governed the relationship between Rogers and Bell-Aliant. 22. All of the decisions (SCC, CRTC, NBQB, and NBCA) were bilingual. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2023, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/48 "2023-07-17T03:19:13Z")
Oh, and getting back to the main part of the thread: I happened to be doing an appearance in the King’s Bench this week, on a bilingual matter. Opposing counsel spoke French, I spoke English, judge spoke both. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2023, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/49 "2023-07-17T11:33:15Z")
When the British government nationalised the telegraph companies, Bell came up with the telephone a few years afterwards, and they had to recognise that the assets they had just purchased for the nation, at great expense, were heading towards obsolescence. They tried to persuade the courts to rule that the telephone _was_ a telegraph, for the purposes of the Telegraph Act, 1868. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/50 "2023-07-18T20:37:12Z")
I’m a lawyer in the legal department of an EU institution. It’s true that, in theory, every language version of the twenty-four official EU languages is equally authentic; but in practice it’s the English one that we’re using almost exclusively, because English is the working language at my workplace. Other language versions are consulted only in case there are some ambiguities in the English text, to see if maybe other versions are less ambiguous. Similarly, in legal theory, when language versions diverge, they’re all equally authentic, and the Court of Justice of the EU will use a comparative analysis of all of them to find out the meaning most likely to be intended. In practice, the Court will take, if anything, the text in the big languages (English, French, German, perhaps Italian), plus, if different, the language of the country where the case in question originated. ---
**Author:** ![Heracles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heracles/32/487_2.png) [@Heracles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heracles)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/51 "2023-07-18T20:58:03Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This month, Globe and Mail reported that Rogers is appealing. In doing so, Rogers will rely on Canada’s second official language. The Toronto daily said that Rogers spent two months finding a French version of the same contract. The punctuation is different in the French version and Rogers says it supports its interpretation of the English version. According to The New York Times, Rogers has also commissioned a 69-page affidavit from an authority on contract language. I fail to see why two private companies, which are not headquartered in Québec, would draw up a binding private contract in both languages. Maybe the French version was a draft for internal review, or for submission to the CRTC? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/52 "2023-07-18T21:20:50Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > English is still an official language of two member states (Ireland and Malta) so its formal status in the EU hasn’t changed. It’s one of the dominant working languages because it’s one of the most very common second languages — people from Estonia and Portugal are far more likely to communicate in English than they are in either Estonian or Portuguese… Did you mean to swap the order of those languages on second reference? > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Oh, and getting back to the main part of the thread: I happened to be doing an appearance in the King’s Bench this week, on a bilingual matter. Opposing counsel spoke French, I spoke English, judge spoke both. Thanks for the essay upthread, **NP** KC! Have you ever, in your lengthy and distinguished career, missed some French legal nuance in the courtroom or in pleadings? ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/53 "2023-07-18T23:24:59Z")
> [@Banksiaman](#): > > …the 1840 [Treaty of Waitangi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi) immediately springs to mind. I’m guessing that there are almost no other instances of this phrase being written/said. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/54 "2023-07-18T23:57:41Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Have you ever, in your lengthy and distinguished career, missed some French legal nuance in the courtroom or in pleadings? Not that I’m aware of, but my court work generally doesn’t involve witnesses. I couldn’t handle a witness testifying in French. Turns of phrase, immediate responses, and credibility are so important in trial work and all turn intimately on the spoken word; less so when arguing points of law. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/55 "2023-07-19T00:15:31Z")
> [@Heracles](#): > > I fail to see why two private companies, which are not headquartered in Québec, would draw up a binding private contract in both languages. Because it wasn’t simply a contract. The CRTC had the power to regulate the fees that would be charged to access telephone poles, and that was through some mixture of CRTC order and regulations. It sounds like the agreement or document that set out the rights and liabilities of Rogers and Bell-Aliant was at least part based on the tariff of costs and access rules that the CRTC had set out, and therefore the base for the document would have been enacted in English and in French, with each version having equal authority. Because the document had roots in the CRTC bilingual order, both language versions would be relevant. (Bear in mind that Professor Piper only swotted all this up to respond to requests from certain keeners, and hasn’t looked at this issue since the SCC decision came out, many moons ago, so he may have some of the details wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/56 "2023-07-19T00:58:54Z")
> [@themapleleaf](#): > > " In the case of a **discrepancy** between the French and English versions of a statute, regulation or other act referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 of section 7 **that cannot be properly resolved using the ordinary rules of interpretation** , **the French text shall prevail.**" > > In other words, the French text takes precedence _if_ it is necessary to resolve a discrepancy between the two versions that cannot be solved by rules of interepretation commonly used to interpret laws. I have my doubts about that. The Supreme Court has rejected a similar, although less sophisticated, version of this argument in [_Doré v. Verdun (City)_, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1539/index.do?): > This argument was rejected by Baudouin J.A. in the judgment under appeal, partly on the basis that the English version of the _Civil Code_ is [translation] “merely a translation of the original French version” (p. 1327). With respect, although what he stated is unfortunately true, it cannot be used to reject the argument made by the appellant. Section 7 of the _Charter of the French language_ , R.S.Q., c. C-11, provides that the French and English versions of Quebec statutes “are equally authoritative”. This is in accordance with [s. 133](https://qweri.lexum.com/w/calegis/30---31-vict-c-3-en#!fragment/sec133) of the _[Constitution Act, 1867](https://qweri.lexum.com/w/calegis/30---31-vict-c-3-en)_ which requires that the statutes of the legislature of Quebec be enacted in both official languages and that both versions be equally authoritative and have the same status (see: _Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie_ , [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016; _Reference re Manitoba Language Rights_ , [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721). Giving the tie-breaker to the French version seems contrary to the jurisprudence of equal authority developed under s. 133 of the _Constitution Act, 1867_. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/57 "2023-07-19T01:34:11Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > > [@UDS1](#): > > > > people from Estonia and Portugal are far more likely to communicate in English than they are in either Estonian or Portuguese… > > Did you mean to swap the order of those languages on second reference? I think UDS1 meant that if you have one Estonian person and one Portuguese person, they are both more likely to have English as a second language, than for the Estonian person to have Portuguese as a second language, or the Portuguese person to have Estonian as a second language. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/58 "2023-07-19T01:54:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I think UDS1 meant that if you have one Estonian person and one Portuguese person, they are both more likely to have English as a second language, than for the Estonian person to have Portuguese as a second language, or the Portuguese person to have Estonian as a second language. This. What I should have said first time around was that “people from Estonia and Portugal are far more likely to communicate _ **with one another** _ in English than they are in either Estonian or Portuguese”. ---
**Author:** ![Banksiaman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banksiaman/32/3334_2.png) [@Banksiaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banksiaman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/59 "2023-07-19T06:09:49Z")
> [@CC](#): > > I’m guessing that there are almost no other instances of this phrase being written/said. Don’t know but at the time British presence in New Zealand had only been significant for a few decades and there had been little in the way of broader treaty-making. Maori chiefs exercised sovereignity that was probably fundamentally different from their British equivalents. There was also a long period of wilfully ignoring the terms of the Treaty by the British, whether the British or Maori versions. That did not help. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785/60 "2023-07-19T16:35:44Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Rogers appeals to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, which, in lengthy reasons, says, “Too bad, so sad,” and dismisses Rogers’s appeal. I assume there’s a decent body of law - either language or civil code - that basically states you cannot contract for something not within your power or permission to deliver. Aliant may have entered into the contract in good faith and before circumstances changed (would this be an example of _force majeure_ or major force?) but being unable to deliver means the contract is void? I presume too that buried in that SCC judgement was no clause saying “but existing contracts should be honored…”. So I assume that absent explicit affirmation of contracts, that the result is “contracts made on an incorrect assumption are void”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-in-multilingual-countries-the-pitfalls-of-nuance/986785.md?page=4)