With Legal Language

The chapter of the Bankruptcy Act that provides for the adjustment of the debts of a person with a regular income is often referred to as the „employees“ plan. Chapter 13 allows a debtor to keep their assets and use their disposable income to pay off debts over time, usually three to five years. What is the relationship between the language used to create legal norms and the law itself? If the law provides that a form of words determines the content of a norm (e.g. a contractual clause or a criminal offence or an obligation of the executor), what is the effect of the use of these words? The question seems to require general theories about the meaning of language and the interpretation of communicative actions. If there are no general theories, then there is no general answer to the question. A theory of the meaning and interpretation of legal language would be no much less general than a theory of the meaning and interpretation of language. The possibility of such reasonable disagreement (even between persons who understand the language of the legislature equally well) lies in the complex pragmatic considerations discussed in section 2.3 regarding the effect of a legislative act of communication. Consider that if we were to try to stick to the theory of content retrieval, we would have to say that the relevant provisions of the speakers must be contextualized: since the context influences the dispositions of the speakers, we should ask ourselves whether they are ready to apply the word to a wheeled chicken coop, in the context of the application of the word „vehicle“ in a legal provision, This makes it a criminal offence to use a vehicle without tires. to protect road surfaces. And if we ask for the speakers` provisions in this correct context, it obviously becomes absurd to think that there should be legal force in their provisions to decide the very question for which the Court was competent and obliged. For this reason, of course, in every jurisdiction there are courts to settle disputes. They are still an integral part of the system of government of a State governed by the rule of law, although they very often have various forms of independence from the other institutions of the system. Courts or tribunals are usually empowered to interpret legislative language and determine its effect in certain cases.

Unlike litigants, courts typically intervene with legislators in the governance enterprise (even if the courts are independent) and often have their own legislative capacity. Their role in the system is the substratum of a cooperative principle that has an even deeper meaning (and somewhat simpler implications) for the functioning of a legal system than Grice`s cooperative principle in ordinary conversation. And, of course, this cooperative role of a tribunal in the legal system limits the arguments of the disputing parties: even if they are inclined to distort the language of the law (and even if they strongly believe that the other party is distorting the language of the law), they need an argument that convinces a committed institution, at least in principle. for the cooperative interpretation of legislative acts. One way to explain the decision is to say that the Lord Chief Justice cooperated with the legislature in treating the legislature as if he had adhered to Grice`s cooperative principle: „Make your contribution to the conversation as it did at the stage at which it takes place, by the purpose or accepted direction of the conversation, in which you are involved“ (Grice, 1989, p. 26; for a discussion of the principle, see Grice). As lawyers know, courts sometimes interpret laws in a more or less uncooperative way, and it is not difficult to imagine legislative pathologies (or to identify examples of real-life pathologies) that justify such an attitude of judges. When courts adopt a generally uncooperative attitude towards legislation, the entire legal system suffers from a pathology: the inability to uphold the constitutional values of openness and clarity of laws. A special condition imposed by the court requires a person to work – without pay – for a civil or non-profit organization. An official of the judiciary who has the power to adjudicate complaints before the courts. The term commonly used judge can also refer to all bailiffs, including Supreme Court judges.

Due to the prevalence of the English language in international business relations, as well as its role as a legal language worldwide, the international legal community has long felt that traditional English training is not sufficient to meet the language requirements of English lawyers. The main reason for this is that such education generally ignores the ways in which the use of English can be altered by the particular requirements of legal practice – and by the conventions of legal English as a separate branch of English.