The conditional tense in French is often translated by the use of "would" in
English. For example:
En ce cas il le trouverait facilement
In that case he would easily find it.
Similarly, the conditional perfect tense is "would have":
If you had looked properly you would have found it.
However, this is not always the case. Here are two examples of incorrect
translations of the French conditional tense which I have come across
recently:
In a contract for the supply of computer products and services:
"...ne s'applique pas aux produits qui seraient intégrés au présent contrat
au titre de l'article 9.3 ci-après."
Shall not apply to any product which would be added to this agreement in
accordance with article 9.3 below.
In a court decision on a case involving the poaching of employees
(débauchage):
...la société offrait aux salariés qui la rejoindraient des postes plus élevés.
...the company offered employees who would join it higher level positions.
In these two examples the conditional is appropriate in the French, as the
sentences refer to hypothetical situations: the possible addition of new
products in the first example, and the possibility of employees agreeing to
work for the company, in the second.
However, in English the use of "would" is not appropriate.
In the first example, the French conditional should be translated by "may
be":
...shall not apply to any product that may be added to this agreement in
accordance with article 9.3 below.
While in the second example I suggest adding the verb "agree":
...the company offered employees who agreed to join it higher level
positions.
In French legal documents (statements of claim, conclusions, judgments) that
refer to disputed facts the conditional tense is often used when a fact has
not been established.
This technique is also used by journalists when reporting unascertained
facts. Its use can also suggest that a statement or claim is in fact
untrue.
Let us consider the following example:
"le jeune homme aurait volé le sac à main de la vieille dame."
Once again, the construction "would" is inappropriate here (the young man
would have stolen the old lady's handbag).
In English, the best solution would be to add an adverb such as 'apparently'
or 'allegedly'.
For instance, apparently could be used in normal speech or when reporting
unproven facts:
"apparently the young man stole the old lady's handbag".
'Allegedly' would be appropriate in a legal document, such as a defence
document written by the young man's lawyer:
"the young man allegedly stole the old lady's handbag".
The use of 'allegedly' also suggests that this may not in fact be true.
So, in the case of the poaching of employees, "la société défenderesse
aurait débauché 9 employés" could be translated as "the defendant allegedly poached (or hired away) 9 employees".
