"::::::::I thought you meant that actually, but how do you know if ""duty of care"" is always applied. You seem to think that some safe havens exist where ""duty of care"" does not apply. It is thus somehow god-given that substandard translations simply do not occur, just because it is a literary translation. And that automatically no damages could be litigated from another party. This is not the legal thinking of the 1990 ruling. The litigation risks still do indeed factually exist. ::::::::Tim Martin from above goes on to cite Byrne: ""Byrne nonetheless goes on to conclude that “…it would be unrealistic to interpret this lack of cases as proof that translators do not make
"::::::::I thought you meant that actually, but how do you know if ""duty of care"" is always applied. You seem to think that some safe havens exist where ""duty of care"" does not apply. It is thus somehow god-given that substandard translations simply do not occur, just because it is a literary translation. And that automatically no damages could be litigated from another party. This is not the legal thinking of the 1990 ruling. The litigation risks still do indeed factually exist. ::::::::Tim Martin from above goes on to cite Byrne: ""Byrne nonetheless goes on to conclude that “…it would be unrealistic to interpret this lack of cases as proof that translators do not make a