![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is the expression "legal doublet" a recognised term? This is a handy list, but I beseech, implore and exhort the creator to come up with a source. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Johndgregory ( talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Some of these are 'true' doublets, i.e. each one of the pair (or triplet, as Jowa fan notes) means the same, and some are not. 'Give, devise and bequeath' refers to three different methods of transferring property. 'give' may cover both, but devise means transfer land, and bequeath means transfer personal property on death.
Johndgregory ( talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 'to have and to hold' is not the same kind of thing, since both key words are of Germanic/English origin. Most of the linguistic doublets are English/French, for historical reasons. French being the language of the ruling classes from 1066 till about 1400, it was the official language of the courts, so lawyers needed to know it. 'to have and to hold' sounds much more like a standard Anglo-Saxon (Old English) doublet, like 'might and main', 'hack and hew', 'wind and water', 'horse and hound'. Also, they don't mean the same thing: one goes to ownership, the other to possession, concepts that lawyers learn to distinguish early in their education.
Should the phrase "intents and purposes" be on this list? - Rainwarrior ( talk) 04:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
These words are not similar - they are three separate acts necessary, at common law, for an enforceable document known as a "deed" to be effective. The common law has been changed in most places, and in the United States deeds are rarely used. A deed is a document similar to a written contract, but it does not need to have the consideration required for a contract. It is enforceable against the person who made it. At common law, in order for the deed to become binding, you had to:
In modern times, statute law in most places allow the document to just say it is sealed, and if so it is taken by law to be sealed.
The use of the phrase "signed, sealed and delivered" outside the context of a deed is a misuse of the term amounting to a mere flourish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.133 ( talk) 05:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not in the list, but is it one of them? It's a Germanic + Romance pairing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.127.236 ( talk) 17:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the example are not near synonyms. Should hey be removed, or is the definition wrong? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
20:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC).
How is it a legal doublet, it is not synonym at all??? Hhgygy ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this a legal doublet? If so, it should be included. SmilingFace ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that using more than one word in such situations might have been a means of denying or discouraging disputes over shades of meaning - i.e. giving the impression "This formulation covers ALL possible shades of meaning, therefore there can be no grounds for dispute", whether that impression was strictly true or merely a bluff. TooManyFingers ( talk) 06:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is the expression "legal doublet" a recognised term? This is a handy list, but I beseech, implore and exhort the creator to come up with a source. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Johndgregory ( talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Some of these are 'true' doublets, i.e. each one of the pair (or triplet, as Jowa fan notes) means the same, and some are not. 'Give, devise and bequeath' refers to three different methods of transferring property. 'give' may cover both, but devise means transfer land, and bequeath means transfer personal property on death.
Johndgregory ( talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 'to have and to hold' is not the same kind of thing, since both key words are of Germanic/English origin. Most of the linguistic doublets are English/French, for historical reasons. French being the language of the ruling classes from 1066 till about 1400, it was the official language of the courts, so lawyers needed to know it. 'to have and to hold' sounds much more like a standard Anglo-Saxon (Old English) doublet, like 'might and main', 'hack and hew', 'wind and water', 'horse and hound'. Also, they don't mean the same thing: one goes to ownership, the other to possession, concepts that lawyers learn to distinguish early in their education.
Should the phrase "intents and purposes" be on this list? - Rainwarrior ( talk) 04:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
These words are not similar - they are three separate acts necessary, at common law, for an enforceable document known as a "deed" to be effective. The common law has been changed in most places, and in the United States deeds are rarely used. A deed is a document similar to a written contract, but it does not need to have the consideration required for a contract. It is enforceable against the person who made it. At common law, in order for the deed to become binding, you had to:
In modern times, statute law in most places allow the document to just say it is sealed, and if so it is taken by law to be sealed.
The use of the phrase "signed, sealed and delivered" outside the context of a deed is a misuse of the term amounting to a mere flourish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.133 ( talk) 05:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not in the list, but is it one of them? It's a Germanic + Romance pairing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.127.236 ( talk) 17:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the example are not near synonyms. Should hey be removed, or is the definition wrong? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
20:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC).
How is it a legal doublet, it is not synonym at all??? Hhgygy ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this a legal doublet? If so, it should be included. SmilingFace ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that using more than one word in such situations might have been a means of denying or discouraging disputes over shades of meaning - i.e. giving the impression "This formulation covers ALL possible shades of meaning, therefore there can be no grounds for dispute", whether that impression was strictly true or merely a bluff. TooManyFingers ( talk) 06:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)