Legal Definitions - arguendo

Arguendo is a legal term meaning "for the sake of argument." It is used when someone assumes a hypothetical statement to be true temporarily, solely for the purpose of exploring its implications or consequences within a discussion or legal argument. This assumption does not mean the person believes the statement is actually true or concedes its validity; rather, it allows for the examination of a 'what if' scenario without committing to the truth of the premise itself. It is often employed by judges to show that even if a party's point were correct, it would not change the ultimate outcome of the case.

• Example 1 (Judicial Opinion): In a complex environmental lawsuit, the defendant argued that a specific regulation did not apply to their operations. The judge, in her written opinion, stated, "Arguendo, even if we were to accept the defendant's interpretation that the regulation's scope is narrower than the plaintiff suggests, the defendant's actions still fall under a separate, undisputed statute that mandates the same corrective measures."

  Explanation: Here, the judge is not agreeing with the defendant's interpretation of the regulation. Instead, she is temporarily accepting that premise to demonstrate that, even under that hypothetical scenario, the defendant would still be liable due to another legal provision. This allows the court to move forward without needing to definitively rule on the first, more contentious, regulatory interpretation.

• Example 2 (Legal Negotiation): During a mediation session for a breach of contract dispute, the plaintiff's attorney might say, "Arguendo, let's assume for a moment that our client did not provide every single document requested on time. The defendant's subsequent actions clearly demonstrate a complete abandonment of the agreement, which is a separate and more significant breach."

  Explanation: The attorney is not admitting their client failed to provide documents on time. By using "arguendo," they are creating a hypothetical situation to pivot the discussion to the defendant's more severe breach, without conceding any fault on their own client's part, thereby strengthening their negotiation position.

• Example 3 (Academic Legal Discussion): A law professor, while teaching a class on criminal procedure, might pose a question: "Arguendo, if the police had obtained the search warrant based on information from an anonymous tip alone, would the evidence discovered still be admissible under the 'good faith' exception?"

  Explanation: The professor is not suggesting that the police actually obtained the warrant solely on an anonymous tip, nor are they stating that such a warrant would be valid. They are using "arguendo" to create a hypothetical scenario for the students to analyze and apply legal principles, exploring the boundaries and exceptions within criminal procedure law.