Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

interpretation clause

Read a random definition: Dean of Guild

A quick definition of interpretation clause:

An interpretation clause is a part of a law or contract that explains the meaning of words that are commonly used or how the entire document should be understood. It helps to avoid confusion and ensures that everyone involved understands the same thing. However, there is a historical method of interpretation called "interpretatio viperina" which is not recommended because it can lead to the destruction of the effectiveness of the document.

A more thorough explanation:

An interpretation clause is a provision found in legislative or contractual documents that explains the meaning of words or phrases that are frequently used in the document. It can also provide guidance on how the document as a whole should be interpreted.

For example, a contract may include an interpretation clause that defines specific terms used throughout the agreement, such as "goods" or "services." This helps to ensure that all parties involved have a clear understanding of what is being referred to in the contract.

However, it is important to note that not all interpretation clauses are created equal. In some cases, an interpretation clause may be interpreted in a way that undermines the effectiveness of the document. This is known as "interpretatio viperina," which is a disapproved method of construction.

For instance, if a contract includes an interpretation clause that is overly broad or vague, it may be subject to interpretation in a way that renders the contract unenforceable. This is why it is important to carefully consider the language used in an interpretation clause and ensure that it accurately reflects the intentions of all parties involved.

interpretation | interpretative rule

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.