Software Licence: When the Client Asks the Translator to 'Strengthen' Liability

I would separate translation from legal drafting. 赔偿损失 means compensation for losses/damages; it does not by itself specify indirect or consequential loss. Adding “including indirect and consequential damages” expands the scope of liability and could expose the licensee to heads of damage the Chinese clause does not mention. If the English version is the operative text, that is a substantive change, not a stylistic strengthening. I would explain this to the legal manager in plain terms and offer a lawful route: I translate the clause faithfully as “compensate for losses”; if the client wants broader liability, the Chinese clause should be revised by counsel and then translated. I would not silently insert the phrase. If the client insists, I would ask for written instruction, mark the addition clearly as a client-requested deviation, and recommend legal review under German law, because “consequential damages” does not map neatly onto every civil-law system.

包括但不限于 has a settled English equivalent: “including but not limited to”. That is accurate, standard and should be kept. The phrase does not need strengthening; it already makes the list non-exhaustive. “Time is of the essence” is different. It is a common-law phrase with specific legal effect, and the Chinese clause does not contain it. Translating the 30-day period as “within 30 days after receipt of written notice” is faithful. Adding “time is of the essence” would create an English-law-style emphasis that the Chinese source does not authorise; a German licensee's counsel may also argue about its effect. If the client wants a strict-deadline clause, the proper step is to amend the Chinese and have both versions reviewed. I would offer a neutral alternative only as a drafting suggestion outside the translation, not as a substitute in the translated text.

I would accept the compliment but reject the premise that translation expertise includes authority to expand legal liability. I would say: “I can translate the Chinese as written, and I can flag where the English could be strengthened; I cannot certify an expanded English version as a translation of this Chinese text.” I would then deliver a faithful translation plus a short query memo identifying the two requested additions, the clauses affected, and the risk that the English and Chinese would no longer be equivalent. If the client can obtain a revised Chinese clause approved by counsel before the deadline, I will translate that revised clause. If not, I will not insert the additions silently. If the client still insists, I would decline to include them or clearly mark the document as a non-equivalent client revision, not as my translation. That protects the client from an unadvised liability shift and protects me professionally.