Legal Definitions - quod voluit non dixit

quod voluit non dixit

This Latin phrase translates to "that he did not say what he intended." It describes a situation where a person's spoken or written words fail to accurately express their true underlying intention. This concept is often invoked in legal interpretation when there is a discrepancy between the literal meaning of a document (such as a will, contract, or statute) and what the creator of that document genuinely meant to convey.

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Example 1: A Will with Ambiguous Language

  An elderly woman drafts her own will, stating, "I leave all my property to my beloved nephew, Mark, and his children." She only has one nephew, Mark, who has two adult children. Her true intention was to leave everything to Mark *only*, trusting that he would then provide for his own children as he saw fit. However, the wording "Mark and his children" could be interpreted by a court as meaning Mark and his children are to share the inheritance equally, or that the children receive a portion directly, rather than Mark receiving the entirety.

  This situation exemplifies "quod voluit non dixit" because the woman *intended* to leave everything solely to Mark, but her chosen words ("Mark and his children") *did not* clearly express that singular intent, potentially leading to a different distribution of her assets than she desired.

• Example 2: A Contract with an Omission

  A graphic designer agrees to create a new logo for a client. Their written contract specifies the design fees and the number of revisions included but makes no mention of the project completion deadline. Both parties had verbally agreed on a 4-week turnaround, as the client needed the logo for an upcoming product launch. When the designer takes 8 weeks to deliver the final logo, the client argues that the contract, despite its silence, should reflect their mutual understanding of a 4-week deadline.

  Here, "quod voluit non dixit" applies because, while the written contract *did not say* anything about the completion date, both parties *intended* for a 4-week delivery. The omission in the written word failed to capture their true, shared intention, leading to a dispute.

• Example 3: A Legislative Statute with Unintended Scope

  A state legislature passes a new law aimed at reducing plastic waste, which includes a clause stating that "no single-use plastic containers shall be distributed by food service establishments." The lawmakers' primary intention was to target items like plastic cups, plates, and cutlery used by restaurants. However, a local dairy farm that sells milk in single-use plastic jugs argues that, under a strict interpretation, their product falls under the ban, even though the legislature clearly did not intend to disrupt the sale of essential food items packaged in standard ways.

  In this scenario, the legislature *intended* to regulate specific types of plastic waste from food service, but the broad wording of the statute ("no single-use plastic containers") *did not say* precisely what they intended, leading to an unintended consequence for the dairy farm. The literal words did not fully capture the lawmaker's underlying purpose.