le préjudice doit être certain dans son principe

14:45 Oct 16, 2023 

Définition du préjudice certain ( caractères / principes du préjudice).
https://aurelienbamde.com/2019/11/13/conditions-de-mise-en-o...

11:38 Oct 16, 2023 

Fair point! Don't know what I was thinking there :) In this context however, given the "préjudice" appears to be financial and assuming it to be the case, I'd still prefer loss, I think, all others things being equal (e.g. the word isn't already being used to refer to some different aspect of the matter & it would be confusing to use it again).

You could then have "the fact and value/amount of the loss must be clearly established..." it's that kind of idea but "fact & value of [whatever you decide]" or similar is quite a useful construction for brevity if you have to be more long-winded about "certain".

07:04 Oct 16, 2023 

The word used in this text, and the sentence of interest, is préjudice, though, not dommage. I usually translate the former by "damage", accepting it as countable, which is recognised as feasible in English-language legalese. And incidentally solving many a real headache when translating French legalese.

19:18 Oct 15, 2023 

Règle juridique établie par un texte en termes assez généraux destinés à inspirer diverses applications et s'imposant avec une autorité supérieure.
Cornu, Gérard Vocabulaire juridique

17:20 Oct 15, 2023 

My view , the same as yours = ' ... demontrating that it is damage/loss according to the legal definition' = fondé juridiquement. ( Cassation civ. )What else ?

13:04 Oct 15, 2023 

FWIW, dommage is not damage, or at least, not only and not necessarily. I usually translate it as "loss or harm" because it is, in principle (!) referring to whatever it is that the insurance is supposed to compensate for, whether it is replacing your car or a factory or the notional worth of your left leg.

10:41 Oct 15, 2023 

Yes, that's my suspicion. But if Emmanuella can point to evidence of her view... Of course préjudice/damage *is* a juridical thing, so showing proof of its existence necessarily means demonstrating that it is damage according to the legal definition rather than any other notion of "damage".

00:42 Oct 15, 2023 

IOW "être certain dans son principe" = be sure that what happened does qualify as "un préjudice de la faute contractuelle" i.e. there is no doubt that some damage was caused by not respecting the contrat.

First step: "is there any damage?" Only if caused by ignoring the contract, otherwise it doesn't count. (=être certain dans son principe)
Next step: what's the verified/certain amount of the damage? (=être certain dans son montant)

15:32 Oct 14, 2023 

Je pense plutôt à 'qu'il est fondé juridiquement'

15:11 Oct 14, 2023 

Could it mean occurrence, in other words the fact that it exists?