Legal Definitions - per ambages

per ambages

This Latin term describes a manner of communication or action that is indirect, roundabout, or evasive, often to avoid being straightforward or clear. It implies a deliberate lack of directness, where someone speaks or acts in a circuitous way rather than addressing a matter head-on.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Witness Testimony

  During a court trial, a witness is asked directly if they saw the defendant at the crime scene. Instead of giving a simple "yes" or "no" answer, the witness responds by describing the weather that day, their emotional state, and the general atmosphere of the neighborhood, without ever confirming or denying seeing the defendant. The judge might then instruct the witness to answer the question directly, noting that they are answering per ambages, or indirectly.

  This example illustrates "per ambages" because the witness is deliberately avoiding a direct answer to a crucial question, choosing a roundabout and evasive explanation instead.

• Example 2: Business Negotiations

  In a high-stakes business negotiation, one party is asked to state their final offer for a property. Rather than presenting a clear figure, their representative discusses market trends, the property's potential future value, and the general economic climate, suggesting that a definitive offer is "forthcoming" but never actually stating it. The other party might grow frustrated, feeling that the negotiation is proceeding per ambages, without direct engagement on the key terms.

  This demonstrates "per ambages" as the negotiator is being evasive and indirect about their actual offer, using tangential information to avoid a clear commitment.

• Example 3: Public Policy Announcement

  A government official is questioned by journalists about a controversial new policy that is expected to increase taxes. Instead of confirming or denying the tax increase, the official speaks at length about the government's commitment to fiscal responsibility, the need for sustainable public services, and the long-term benefits of various economic strategies, without ever directly addressing the specific tax hike. Critics might accuse the official of communicating per ambages, failing to be transparent with the public.

  Here, "per ambages" is shown through the official's indirect and evasive communication, using general statements to avoid directly confirming or discussing a sensitive policy detail.