Legal Definitions - but see

In legal writing, but see is a signal used to direct readers to a source that, while not directly contradicting the author's preceding statement, presents information or a viewpoint that *indirectly* or *inferentially* supports an opposing conclusion. It suggests that the cited material, upon careful consideration, offers a perspective or outcome that challenges or complicates the author's immediate assertion, even if the contradiction isn't immediately obvious.

Unlike signals that indicate a direct and clear contradiction, but see is used when the opposing point requires a degree of interpretation or an inference to fully grasp the contrary implication from the cited source.

• Example 1 (Contract Law):

  An author might state: "Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are almost always upheld by courts, ensuring disputes are resolved efficiently outside of traditional litigation."

  A legal brief might then include: "But see, Smith v. XYZ Corp., 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2023) (finding an arbitration clause unenforceable where it required consumers to pay prohibitive upfront fees, effectively denying access to dispute resolution)."

  Explanation: This example illustrates but see because the cited case doesn't declare all arbitration clauses invalid. Instead, it highlights a specific circumstance (prohibitive fees) under which such a clause was *not* enforced. This indirectly challenges the author's broad assertion that arbitration clauses are "almost always upheld" by showing a significant exception that requires the reader to infer the limitations on the author's general statement.

• Example 2 (Environmental Policy):

  A policy paper might argue: "Implementing a carbon tax is the most direct and effective way to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions."

  A footnote might then state: "But see, 'Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing: A Comparative Study,' Environmental Policy Review (2022) (suggesting that while carbon taxes reduce emissions in some sectors, they can inadvertently lead to 'carbon leakage' where industries relocate to countries with weaker regulations, potentially offsetting global emission reductions)."

  Explanation: Here, but see is appropriate because the cited study doesn't directly claim that carbon taxes are ineffective. Instead, it introduces a complex side effect (carbon leakage) that *indirectly* complicates the author's assertion about the "most direct and effective way" to reduce emissions, requiring the reader to infer that the policy's effectiveness might be less straightforward than initially presented.

• Example 3 (Property Law/Zoning):

  A legal analysis might assert: "Under the city's current zoning ordinance, no commercial activity whatsoever is permitted within residential districts."

  A subsequent citation could read: "But see, City Zoning Board Decision No. 2024-005 (allowing a homeowner to operate a small, online-only graphic design business from their residence, provided there were no client visits, external signage, or impact on neighborhood traffic)."

  Explanation: This demonstrates but see because the Zoning Board's decision doesn't outright declare that "all commercial activity is allowed." Instead, it carves out a specific, narrowly defined exception for a particular type of home-based business. This *indirectly* qualifies or challenges the author's absolute statement that "no commercial activity whatsoever" is permitted, prompting the reader to infer that the ordinance might be interpreted with more nuance than the author initially suggested.