Keine Übersetzung; aber hier wird der Begriff diskutiert:
“INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS”
It’s commonplace for drafters to use the phrase indemnify and hold harmless (or save harmless). As explained below, it’s much clearer and safer to use just indemnify.
Black’s Law Dictionary treats indemnify and hold harmless as synonyms, in that it defines hold harmless as follows: “To absolve (another party) from any responsibility for damage or other liability arising from the transaction; INDEMNIFY.”...Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, at 444, collects other dictionary definitions to the same effect, concluding that “The evidence is overwhelming that indemnify and hold harmless are perfectly synonymous.”
Some courts have come to the same conclusion, notably the Delaware Court of Chancery. In Majkowski v. American Imaging Management, LLC, 913 A.2d 572, 588–89 (Del. Ch. 2006), then-Vice Chancellor Strine suggested that many transactional lawyers would be quite surprised to learn that by adding hold harmless to indemnify they had been creating additional rights. He continued, “As a result of traditional usage, the phrase ‘indemnify and hold harmless’ just naturally rolls off the tongue (and out of the word processors) of American commercial lawyers. The two terms almost always go together. Indeed, modern authorities confirm that ‘hold harmless’ has little, if any, different meaning than the word ‘indemnify.’” ...v. Hudson, 182 P.3d 25, 33 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008) (“[A] hold harmless provision in a separation agreement is the same as an indemnity agreement.”).
Nevertheless, some commentators have seen fit to endorse a distinction between indemnify and hold harmless.For example, Mellinkoff’s Dictionary of American Legal Usage, at xx, says that “hold harmless is understood to protect another against the risk of loss as well as actual loss.” It goes on to say that indemnify is sometimes used as a synonym of hold harmless, but that indemnify can also mean “reimburse for any damage,” a narrower meaning than that of hold harmless.
Some courts have done likewise. For example, in United States v. Contract Mgmt., Inc., 912 F.2d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 1990), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in dicta that “the terms ‘indemnify’ and ‘hold harmless’ refer to slightly different legal remedies.” And in Queen Villas Homeowners Association v. TCB Property Management, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 528, 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007), the court fabricated a distinction—that indemnify is an “offensive” right allowing an indemnitee to seek indemnification whereas hold harmless is a “defensive” right allowing an indemnitee not to be bothered by the other party itself seeking indemnification.
And in the Canadian case Stewart Title Guarantee Company v. Zeppieri,  O.J. No. 322 (S.C.J.), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held, without providing any support, that “the contractual obligation to save harmless, in my view, is broader than that of indemnification,” in that someone having the benefit of a hold harmless provision “should never have to put his hand in his pocket in respect of a claim” covered by that provision.
So the redundancy in the phrase indemnify and hold harmless is pernicious, in that disgruntled contract parties might seek to have unintended meaning attributed to hold harmless. And any given court might decide to distinguish indemnify from hold harmless, prompted by the judicial rule of construction that every word in a provision is to be given effect.
To stay out of trouble, never use hold harmless....