In the case, In case, where ...

[Solutio]

I wonder if there are any differences related to the meaning in the sentences below or if the usages are accurate or not ?

1) In the case that the process requires further cost, the fee determined by the board may be requested.
2) In the case where the process requires further cost, the fee determined by the board may be requested.
3) In case the process requires further cost, the fee determined by the board may be requested.
4) Where the process requires further cost, the fee determined by the board may be requested.
5) In the event that the process requires further cost, the fee determined by the board may be requested.

By the way, I am aware that we are supposed to use phrases starting with "in case" when we intend to talk about precautions. However, I come across a lot of sentences, particularly in legal texts such as in contracts, where people use "in case" as a substitute for "in the event". Therefore, I wanted to inquire whether this usage is correct or if we could use them interchangeably in the case of contracts.

Thank you in advance.

 

[jutfrank]

Are these all your sentences? If so, tell us in more detail exactly what you mean to say.

 

[Tarheel]

Perhaps: "Is there any difference in meaning between the following sentences?"

I might say: "If the process requires further cost .. " except I wouldn't say that because I would have no idea what I was saying

 

[Solutio]

I was trying to translate some legal text but I found out somebody actually had done that previously. The actual text was as follows:

“The data controller shall conclude demands in the request within the shortest time by taking into account the nature of the demand and at the latest within thirty days and free of charge. However if the action requires an extra cost, fees may be charged in the tariff determined by the Board.”

I was wondering if I can use my sentences instead of the one marked bold above or if there would be any difference in meaning ?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't really understand. Are you translating into English from Armenian? I'd advise strongly against that. If you get anything even slightly wrong, it could have serious legal consequences. This is especially true given that English is not your first language. Legal English must be very precise and appropriate to a very particular register.

The person who has translated it previously evidently felt that if was the right word in the first clause. Why do you think if is not right?

 

[Tarheel]

@Solutio Did you not understand post #3?

 

[Barque]

I was wondering if I can use my sentences instead of the one marked bold above or if there would be any difference in meaning ?

There's also a significant difference between "charged", as in the original, and "requested", the word you want to use.

where people use "in case" as a substitute for "in the event".

It'd normally be "In case of" and the words following may need a change too.

 

[emsr2d2]

I wonder if there Are there any differences related to the in meaning in between the sentences below or if are the usages are accurate? or not ? You need to be more specific. Which usages are you talking about?

 

[Solutio]

Thank you for all the replies and corrections. Firstly, I would like to point out that I am a lawyer working in Turkey and I am trying to familiarize myself with English legal terminology by translating some texts from Turkish to English and checking my translation with the official ones, if any. To this end, I tried to translate the quoted section below from the Turkish Personal Data Protection Law. The quoted text below is the official translation from Turkish to English.

“The data controller shall conclude demands in the request within the shortest time by taking into account the nature of the demand and at the latest within thirty days and free of charge. However if the action requires an extra cost, fees may be charged in the tariff determined by the Board.”

While trying to translate, I thought of five alternative clauses starting with "in the case that...,in the case where..., in case..., in the event that ... where ...". After seeing the official translation, I am surprised to see that the translator opted for "if" instead of the alternatives that I mentioned.

What I wanted to inquire is that:

(i) if I am right in inferring that legal professionals try to avoid using the word "if" and they instead use clauses such as "in the case that...,in the case where..., in case..., in the event that ... where ..." (At least this has been the way I see it so far)
(ii) Whether quoted clauses in (i) are very similiar to the extent they can oftentimes be used interchangibly.

I am sorry to explain it in a lengthy way. But I could not find a way to make it more concise.

Many thanks

 

[Tarheel]

Most of the official version makes no sense to me. However, you should keep the"if" clause.

 

[tedmc]

"The action requires an extra cost" doesn't sound right to me. How about "the action incurs (an) extra cost"?

 

[Tarheel]

@Solutio @tedmec I agree with @tedmc that "incurs" is better than "requires" there. (That still doesn't mean it makes sense.)

I don't know what the official translation is used for, but it probably makes sense in the first language (Turkish).

Yes, "in case" is used to talk about possibilities. Or probabilities.

 

[emsr2d2]

What I wanted to inquire ask is: that:

(i) if I am right in inferring that legal professionals try to avoid using the word "if" and they instead use clauses such as "in the case that...,in the case where..., in case..., in the event that ... where ..." (At least this has been the way I see it so far)
(ii) Whether quoted clauses in (i) are very similiar similar to the extent they can oftentimes be used interchangibly interchangeably.

I am sorry to explain it in a lengthy way at such length no comma here but I could not find a way to make it more concise.

Please note my corrections above.

i) I can't find anything online to suggest that legal professionals avoid using "if". Perhaps that was once the case but, in the UK at least, there has been an attempt to make legalese at least a little more accessible. The Plain English Campaign is to thank for that.

ii) I would hesitate to answer a question about the interchangeability of legal phrases unless I were a qualified lawyer. I'm not. We're frequently asked questions about legal English here but the only members who usually give advice in those cases are those with a legal background.

 

[Barque]

“The data controller shall conclude demands in the request within the shortest time by taking into account the nature of the demand and at the latest within thirty days and free of charge. However if the action requires an extra cost, fees may be charged in the tariff determined by the Board.”

Even if this is legal text, the meaning is clear.
1. The data controller shall normally address demands free of charge.
2. However if he incurs a cost in addressing it, he may charge fees as per a tariff determined by the Board.

I don't see a problem with using "if" and I think legal professionals use much simpler language nowadays.

 

[Tarheel]

I find "conclude demands" and "address demands" equally puzzling.

 

[tedmc]

"Demands in a request" is also puzzling. I can only be one or the other, but not both. A demand comes before a legal suit.
How about "The data controller shall take action on a request..."?

 

[Barque]

I'm guessing they're just nomenclature. Legal language often uses terms that are intended to mean a very specific thing in the context of the document, and may not have exactly its literal or common meaning. It seems like a "request" is the term for a communication to the data controller and may cover various points. A "demand" seems to be a single action item in a request.