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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)