A right is translated as a duty
A fictional contract-training clause says: 甲方有权在收到书面通知后终止本协议。 The surrounding teaching brief identifies Party A and Party B but supplies no governing-law advice or judgment on enforceability. The draft states that Party A is obliged to terminate the agreement before receiving a notice. The translator explains that legal English should always use a mandatory construction because it sounds authoritative. The reviewer also notices that the draft omits the requirement that the notice be written. A team member wants to add a fixed notice period remembered from another agreement. Nothing in the provided source establishes that period. The revision task concerns accurate transfer of the supplied sentence, not drafting new rights or deciding how a court would interpret an actual dispute.
1. List the meaning changes that require correction.
Read the worked answer
The source grants a right rather than imposes a duty, places termination after receipt rather than before, and specifies written notice. A fixed notice period would be an unsupported additional condition.
2. Draft a faithful version and state its limit.
Read the worked answer
Party A has the right to terminate this Agreement after receiving written notice. This preserves the supplied permission and sequence, but does not establish the clause’s enforceability or resolve questions absent from the teaching context.