Part of an agreement - correct?
Hello there,
I would like to ask English native speakers whether this sentence (taken from agreement) is correct:
Who bears the liability in the case of missing/interrupted services of the GMT network operator?
I will appreciate all your answers. If the sentence is incorrect, could you provide a short explanation as well?
Many thanks in advance!
I come to think that the longer you learn a second language, the less clear it becomes 
10 Answers
The sentence in English is correct.
De quién es la responsabilidad en caso de cancelación/interrupción de los servicios del operador de la red GMT?
I'm a native Spanish but I've been practicing with a lot of contractual translations lately, so here's my version.
I am guessing GMT is Greenwich Mean Time, but in any case the sentence looks fine.
Re 12. The Client informs that he will not hold the Contractor realizing the subject matter of the order liable in case of interruption of GSM network services by the network operator.*
This sentence is quite unclear.
.
The Client informs (whom?) that he will not hold the Contractor (responsible? liable?)...
If you use "informs" then you must tell us who is informed. If you wish not to specify that, then use says, states, declares, or even agrees. I think you mean to add "responsible" or "liable" after Contractor, but I'm not entirely sure.
.
...realizing the subject matter of the order liable...
I don't understand that part at all--especially the "order liable" part. Sorry.
Also, is this something the Client realizes or that the Contractor realizes. The context suggests you intend to say that it is something that the Client realizes, but—from a strictly grammatical point of view—as written, it is something the Contractor realizes. If you intend for it to be something that the Client realizes, then the phrase must immediately precede or follow "the Client."
Example: Realizing the sky is blue, the Client states that...
Example: The Client, realizing the sky is blue, states that...
In conversational English, it is extremely common to put these types of phrases (adverbial participial phrases) at the end of the sentence...and context lets everyone know the intended meaning, but it is a grammatical error called the "dangling modifier" and could have unintended consequences in a legal setting.
.
Maybe you intend to say something like...
Understanding the order of liability in such situations, the Client agrees that he/they (see note) will not hold the Contractor responsible in [the] case of interruption of...
The only two terms I can think of are "order of liability" and "liability order" (I think those are very different concepts)...and, again, I don't really understand such terms, not being a lawyer.
Note: I think you should use he if the client is a single male person and that you should use they if the client is actually a company...unless you are aware of a legal precedent to use "he" when referring to corporations or some such (which is certainly possible).
As a sentence in isolation I would say you are correct. To be completely sure it would help to have at least the preceeding sentence to give context.
Thank you all for your feedback. The point is that a certain proofreader who has checked my translation says that "in the case..." should be replaced with "in case..." . However, I think that it slightly changes the meaning, doesn't it? What do you think?
At first, I thought there was a significant change in meaning...but after some thought, I don't think so, really. It can be said both ways. Now, there might be legal consequences to choosing one phrase over the other (word choice from a legal standpoint is highly complicated...and I am not qualified to offer advice on that).
From a casual point of view, the "in the case of" makes it sound like such events are expected to occur at times (not necessarily frequently, but it is still expected). "In case of" makes the event sound more unlikely. But, really, in my mind, the difference is not great.
Again, sometimes these things can have great impact in law suits, however. I don't even know how to begin to research whether there is a legal difference between "in the case of" and "in case of."
As for the "in case/in the case" problem, I have found out the following explanation provided by a native English speaker:
*Explanation: In case of...
Is synonymous with 'in the event of' e.g.
in case of fire (in the event of fire) please leave the building
i.e. If there is a fire, in all cases, please leave the building.
In the case of...
Is used when specifying a particular case. You could be discussing several different cases/situations and want to identify just one and differentiate it from all others.
e.g. In the case of a person suffering severe burns, you should do xxx. In the case of someone drowning, you should xxx.
In the case of - could also be used when talking about legal cases.
e.g. In the case of the man arrrested for killing two people.
or
Recent developments in the case of the murder of the British police officer.
or
There were 9 witnesses in the case of a woman charged with arson.*
Well, if "the case" makes a given event more specific, I will go for adding "the" to the agreement... (which I did but was later corrected by a proofreader 
Thank you Webdunce for your advanced points. In fact my version is the following:
""12) Who bears the liability in the case of missing/interrupted services of the GMT network operator?
Re 12. The Client declares that he will not hold the Contractor of the subject matter of the order liable in the case of missing/interrupted services of the GMT network operator. ""
I really don't know why the proofreader has corrected my "declares" and replaced "in the case" with "in case". As for "he", well, kind of political correctness plays an important role, here. However, I am pretty sure that "he" for the parties of the contract could be called "he", unless their sex was obvious. In this case, however, the parties are companies so why not not to replace it with "it" or "they"...? The proofreader has not corrected it, however.
Anyhow, my special thanks to all of you for all your responses! 
@ Wilbur: Below is the context (this is the version proposed by the proofreader)
*12) Who bears the liability in case of GSM network services being interrupted by the network operator?
Re 12. The Client informs that he will not hold the Contractor realizing the subject matter of the order liable in case of interruption of GSM network services by the network operator.*
Thank you all for your feedback. The point is that a certain proofreader who has checked my translation says that "in the case..." should be replaced with "in case..." . However, I think that it slightly changes the meaning, doesn't it? What do you think?
