KudoZ question not available

23:28 Sep 20, 2012 

Until we see the full text, it remains a question of what is more probable. As part of a longer sentence, (which the ST probably is: the subject of "suffers" is missing, and we are left to assume to who or what "it" refers to) my interpretation is just ways more probable. Ideally, you'll need access to a database of case law and a searchable version of Hansard / HSMO publications, to see all the ways "to suffer" is used in legal texts. For another time ...

20:46 Sep 20, 2012 

Yes, indeed, as Daryo rightly points out, I have perhaps been making too many assumptions based on the missing context; however, I would say that, even without further context, grammatically the sentence as written tends to that interpretation.

For it to mean what Daryo suggests, it ought to have been written:

"Suffers a ... remaining unpaid or otherwise unsatisfied ..."

The verb we should in fact be looking at is expressed as "suffers to...", which is pretty unequivocal in its meaning.

And do note that, even though it is now archaic as far as everyday language is concerned, a great deal of otherwise archaic language remains and is perfectly current in legal English.

So although I would be happier if we had more of the surrounding context, I remain pretty firmly convinced that my original idea was probably correct; unless, of course, the EN was just poorly written in the first place!

18:10 Sep 20, 2012 

to "suffer" in the meaning "to tolerate" is indeed archaic; what is far more likely is that to "suffer" is here used in the usual legal meaning, i.e. to be at disadvantage, sustain some damage or similar meaning.
As the asker has given only a fraction of the full sentence it is tempting to see this fraction as a sentence on its own, but I find it highly unlikely that a legal text would use "to suffer" in an archaic meaning, instead of its usual legal meaning.

14:44 Sep 20, 2012 

I just wanted a bit more space to expand on what I was trying to say below!

'suffer to remain unpaid' is subtly different from 'leave unpaid' (which might otherwise have been written) — it includes the possibility that it might be someone else Y who is actually responsible for making the payment, only X has failed to make sure they did so.

So to me (admittedly ill-placed to judge the same nuance in FR!), it seems to need not 'laisser impayé' (= 'leave unpaid') but more like 'laisser rester impayé' (= 'allow to remain unpaid') — do you see the distinction I am rather inadequately seeking to make?

14:09 Sep 20, 2012 

(1) Suffers = Allows;
(2) the syntax is: ‘suffers ((a final judgement) (or other order against it)) to remain unpaid’

13:46 Sep 20, 2012 

I fear you are being misled by your parsing here. It is hard to be more sure without knowing what has gone before, but I would understand it thus:

'[Party] suffers ... to remain unpaid'

(where 'suffers' has the now archaic meaning of 'allow', cf. Jesus in the NT: "Suffer little children to come unto me") See also R+C Super Senior, and no doubt other good dictionaries.

And what is it that remains unpaid? Why, "a final judgement or order obtained against it"

I hope that makes it clearer, and will enable you to revise your proposed translation.

Something perhaps along the lines of « Permettre [conjug.] ... de rester... »