settlement

Which translation, when

Why

English settlement covers any deal that ends a dispute. The German Vergleich is narrower by definition, § 779 BGB requires that the Streit or the Ungewissheit be removed im Wege gegenseitigen Nachgebens, so a one-sided surrender is not a Vergleich at all, it is an Anerkenntnis or an Erlass, § 397 BGB, and the label matters because § 779 carries its own error rules built on the mutual-concession premise. The procedural side holds the surprise for the English reader: a settlement recorded before the court, the Prozessvergleich, is itself a Vollstreckungstitel, § 794 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 ZPO, breach does not start a lawsuit, it starts enforcement. And the drafting formula travels by function, in full and final settlement is not a word chain but the Abgeltungsklausel, zur endgültigen Abgeltung sämtlicher gegenseitiger Ansprüche, the sentence German releases are actually built on. The transaction sense stays outside, settlement of a trade is Abwicklung, closing mechanics, no dispute anywhere near it.

Typical mistakes

• A capitulation is not a Vergleich, one-sided giving-in is Anerkenntnis or Erlass, § 397 BGB, and the wrong label imports the mutual-concession premise of § 779 BGB that the facts do not carry.
• The enforcement surprise runs against the breaching party, a gerichtlicher Vergleich is a title, § 794 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 ZPO, so walking away from it skips the lawsuit and meets the bailiff.
• Settlement of the transaction is Abwicklung, closing mechanics, and Vergleich there tells the reader a dispute existed that never did.

What matters

The deal that ends the dispute does more in Germany: the parties record their settlement before the court, and the document is not a contract waiting for a judgment, it is enforceable like one, § 794 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 ZPO. The English side reads the translated Vergleich as paperwork, the German side reads it as a title, and the release inside it should say Abgeltung, not a word-for-word echo of full and final.

Examples