1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • including but not limited to

    From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 1 15:16:32 2022
    I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document he was working on for me should use the trope "including but not limited to". Is there some version of the English language or some court decision or
    something that declared that "including" in a contract means "consisting
    of"? I"m puzzled and a bit annoyed....

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Fri Jul 1 22:55:35 2022
    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote in news:a9gubh5v4271l9pj7m4atibaf31ed3o7so@4ax.com:

    I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document
    he was working on for me should use the trope "including but not
    limited to". Is there some version of the English language or
    some court decision or something that declared that "including" in
    a contract means "consisting of"? I"m puzzled and a bit
    annoyed....

    That phrase is generally followed by a specific thing or list of
    things. In that context it is perfectly reasonable. "You may pet any
    furry animal, including but not limited to cats and dogs." I don't see
    the problem.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nobody Special@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Fri Jul 1 22:54:15 2022
    On 01/07/2022 23:16, Bernie Cosell wrote:
    I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document he was working on for me should use the trope "including but not limited to". Is there some version of the English language or some court decision or something that declared that "including" in a contract means "consisting
    of"? I"m puzzled and a bit annoyed....

    /Bernie\



    Read this:
    <https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/sUUprb>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Fri Jul 1 22:52:56 2022
    "Bernie Cosell" wrote in message news:a9gubh5v4271l9pj7m4atibaf31ed3o7so@4ax.com...

    I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document he was >working on for me should use the trope "including but not limited to". Is >there some version of the English language or some court decision or >something that declared that "including" in a contract means "consisting
    of"? I"m puzzled and a bit annoyed....

    /Bernie\

    I think the only reason this is done is to offset the possibility that
    someone may erroneously conclude that the list is inclusive. I agree that grammatically "including" implies "including but not limited to", but not everyone may realize this.

    Here's an article I just found that gives a perspective on this.

    https://lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-226-including-but-not-limited-to/

















    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 2 06:26:39 2022
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

    } Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote in
    } news:a9gubh5v4271l9pj7m4atibaf31ed3o7so@4ax.com:
    }
    } > I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a document
    } > he was working on for me should use the trope "including but not
    } > limited to". Is there some version of the English language or
    } > some court decision or something that declared that "including" in
    } > a contract means "consisting of"? I"m puzzled and a bit
    } > annoyed....
    }
    } That phrase is generally followed by a specific thing or list of
    } things. In that context it is perfectly reasonable. "You may pet any
    } furry animal, including but not limited to cats and dogs." I don't see
    } the problem.

    It just seems to be odd legalese verbosity. How is what you wrote more
    clear [or precise] than "you may pet any furry animal, including cats and dogs"?

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Sun Jul 3 13:06:36 2022
    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
    } Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:
    }
    } > I had an odd exchange with my lawyer who insisted that a
    document } > he was working on for me should use the trope
    "including but not } > limited to". Is there some version of the
    English language or } > some court decision or something that
    declared that "including" in } > a contract means "consisting of"?
    I"m puzzled and a bit } > annoyed....
    }
    } That phrase is generally followed by a specific thing or list of
    } things. In that context it is perfectly reasonable. "You may
    pet any } furry animal, including but not limited to cats and
    dogs." I don't see } the problem.

    It just seems to be odd legalese verbosity. How is what you
    wrote more clear [or precise] than "you may pet any furry animal,
    including cats and dogs"?

    It's not. Lawyers fall into this kind of rut and use words or
    phrases that have been around for hundreds of years. It's what we
    see and read frequently, so in part it's stuck in our heads. But
    also it may seem to be a kind of magic formula since it's been used
    so often in the past.

    One theory about why lawyers say the same thing multiple times is
    that after 1066 a lawyer going to court wouldn't know if the judge
    the was going to be arguing in front of was an Anglo or a Saxon. So
    they would say the same thing using both the Anglo and the Saxon
    words so as not to piss off the judge. It became tradition and
    lawyers still do it, most of the time not knowing (or perhaps even
    caring) the reason why.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)