ingebrekestelling

alisonp

Senior Member
English - UK
A company has been infringing another company's patent by manufacturing goods without paying licence fees. Now the patent holder has written to them:

"Inmiddels dienen we U ingebreke te stellen voor ..." [the damage which you have done to our company]

It also occurs later in "we stellen U in gebreken voor het achterhouden van gegevens" (withholding/suppressing information), and "We stellen U hiervoor in gebreken" [because you are manufacturing and distributing goods which infringe our patent]


Wolters has "hold liable" and "put in default", neither of which seem to me to be appropriate here. "Default" in particular suggests to me that someone should have done something they'd undertaken to do, but hasn't.

Can anyone suggest anything more appropriate, please, or even just provide some sort of explanation of what's meant here, because I'm not sure I've understood it correctly.

Thank you.
 
  • YellowOnline

    Senior Member
    Dutch - Belgium
    According to translations of European law, usually variations of 'default' are indeed used, e.g.

    "zal [partij] de betrokken [partij] in gebreke stellen om zijn contractuele verplichtingen na te leven."
    "[plaintiff] will serve the [defendant] in question with notice of default to comply with its contractual obligations. "

    Contextually, it is used for whatever situation in which a party does not comply with their (legal) obligations. In your sentences, using 'liable' would transfer the same meaning in English.
    "Meanwhile we hold you liable for the damage etc."
    "We hold you liable for witholding information etc."
    "We hold you liable because etc."

    And it is a very, very, very common term in (Belgian) law.
     
    Last edited:

    Peterdg

    Senior Member
    Dutch - Belgium
    The "ingebrekestelling" is a written official notification in which party-1 basically says to party-2 that he should act within a specified time period and if he does not, party-1 will go to court.
     

    eno2

    Senior Member
    Dutch-Flemish
    A company has been infringing another company's patent by manufacturing goods without paying licence fees. Now the patent holder has written to them:

    "Inmiddels dienen we U ingebreke te stellen voor ..." [the damage which you have done to our company]

    It also occurs later in "we stellen U in gebreken voor het achterhouden van gegevens" (withholding/suppressing information), and "We stellen U hiervoor in gebreken" [because you are manufacturing and distributing goods which infringe our patent]


    Wolters has "hold liable" and "put in default", neither of which seem to me to be appropriate here. "Default" in particular suggests to me that someone should have done something they'd undertaken to do, but hasn't.roriate
    Can anyone suggest anything more appropriate, please, or even just provide some sort of explanation of what's meant here, because I'm not sure I've understood it correctly.

    Thank you.
    It's "in gebreke stellen" and not "in gebreken stellen" Ingebrekestelling as a noun.
    Hold liable and put in default both seem appropriate too me because there is an omission (no licence fees paid).
    Issuing notice of default will officialise the omission and give the infringing company a reasonable time to rectify.

     

    alisonp

    Senior Member
    English - UK
    Thank you, all of you, that was very helpful. The more I think about it, the more I think the writer was probably trying to sound all legal, without quite being convincing about it.
     
    Top