+0
It's the last provision of an airgun manual which says:
"To the extent any provision of this warranty is prohibited by federal, state, or municipal law, which can not be preempted, it shall not to be applicable."
I know the meaning of each word but can't get the total notion of these sentences. May you please simplify those?
Thanks.
1 2
Comments  
If any of this warranty is in violation of federal, state, or municipal law, it doesn't apply.
but what about the section of "which can not be preempted"? What's it referring to?
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I suppose it's possible (but I think it unlikely) that any conflicting laws might have a clause where they are superseded by the specific warranty agreement. This might come in the form of a law that says something like:

Implied Warranty:

In the absence of a mutually agreed-upon warranty agreement between the guarantor and the purchaser, the following warranty provisions shall be held to apply:

1. The guarantor warrants the product against defects in manufacturing, shipping, and handling for a term not less than 90 days.
2.
.
.
.
etc.
Yes, that's right. Those sentences are under the "implied Warranties" clause.
So can we conclude that in that clause we can say that; "if there is any provision which can be preempted, it can be applicable even if it has been prohibited by federal, state and municipal laws"?
Isn't there any answer to that last query?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
khoshtipYes, that's right. Those sentences are under the "implied Warranties" clause.So can we conclude that in that clause we can say that; "if there is any provision which can be preempted, it can be applicable even if it has been prohibited by federal, state and municipal laws"?
This is literally the exact opposite of what it means.

It means what I said originally: if the warranty contains any provisions that are barred by federal, state, or local laws, they do not apply. Otherwise, the warranty applies completely. The "preemption" part is, strictly speaking, unnecessary, since one presumes that preemption of laws which can be preempted would happen automatically. They just put it in there to be clear that some laws may be preempted by the terms of the warranty, and that they want such preemption to occur.
Your first line "This is literally..." was useful. And I think I got your meant. But please when you try to simply a sentence or explain a sentence don't try to use complex words and grammar to do that.
Isn't there any other idea for the notion of expression of "which is can not be preempted" in that text?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more