So, again, not to be Garner, but to take my best guess of his thought process: he knows that solvency is a good reason for the judge`s decision. He believes that the verbose explanation will imply (for a non-lawyer and perhaps even for less informed or less critical lawyers) that something is wrong with reason if there is none. The verbose style also contradicts Garner`s penchant for simplicity. Therefore, he simply recommends using “because” instead of “justification.” Subscribe to America`s largest dictionary and get thousands of other definitions and an advanced search – ad-free! Alice would ask for a refund on the grounds that the product was not as described. This is the definition of “Allege(d)” of an online dictionary – note that a good dictionary, combined with a thesaurus, are two essential tools in learning the complex and diverse words of the English language. if you are not sure; I suggest taking these reference books (or using an online app/service). I use them all the time! (www.dictionary.com/browse/allegeverb) From what I`ve seen, Garner is an advocate of simpler language in legal writing. And in this case, he says the more elaborate wording is bad because it`s unnecessary and because it could imply that the reason wasn`t good. For example, a reader (especially a layman) might think that the judge ruled on a formality; As important as rules and procedures are, most people believe that rules, not merit, are a weaker basis for a decision. Grounds are more than just reasons for a court to order a remedy. It is the grounds provided by law that serve as the basis (also known as grounds) for the application for release. Fourth, I literally disagree with Foskey`s answer. I agree with his spirit.
The journalist used the phrase “on the grounds that” because it was an appropriate phrase. tl;drâ The terms “because” and “on the spot” mean different things. “Because” means causality, “on reasoning” for justification. Ideally, causality and justification coincide in simple legal scenarios, so the shorter “because” may be preferred. The use of “on-site” could indicate that the scenario was not simple enough to be appropriate “because”. The phrase “from the reasoning that” tells you that the journalist is giving you the judge`s reasoning, or “because” could also be used to convey the journalist`s reasoning. The opinion of the journalist has no legal weight, and that of the judge has all the weight. Maybe the reporter disagrees. Maybe the reporter doesn`t know if he agrees. Maybe the journalist can write a thesis on all the reasons why he agrees. But it doesn`t matter, because he`s not the judge.
“Because” and “on the scene” mean two different things; They are generally not interchangeable. 1) The judge`s reasoning had nothing to do with solvency, but the decision was correct because I, the rapporteur, can confirm with certainty that the city is solvent and that solvency is a legal obstacle to Chapter 9 relief; or Second, I agree with FumbleFingers that this page is dedicated to English in general, not just the jargon of the US bankruptcy court. Note that the quoted in criticism comes from a general newspaper and not from a legal document. If a distinction is to be made between the normal use of English and the use of the technical language, it is legitimate to point this out if the context indicates that it is relevant, which may be the case when a newspaper reports a legal issue. But it`s not that the public or a newspaper wants or should conform to the conventions of American spelling. Garner`s idea is that if you say “the judge decided X on the basis that Y,” you raise doubts about the judge`s reasoning by refusing to say that you agree that this is the real reason. In some contexts, this may be true. But imagine you`re a journalist. You did some research and you have the judge`s verdict, but you have not done your own investigation to see if the city is really solvent.
If you are cautious, you should not say “because” as this would indicate that you had an independent reason to know that the city was really solvent. All you have are the reasons given by the judge. They shall report only on the content of the judgment. If Charlie chooses Alice or Bob as the winner, then Charlie could do so on the basis of this law – although the law seems indifferent to Alice versus Bob, we probably can`t say that Charlie chose Alice or Bob over the other because of the law. Many people have said that “one of the reasons that does not imply that the reason is bad (and I agree). But Garner clearly believes that this is the case, at least in this case. What for? Either Bryan Garner, a lawyer and linguist, is completely wrong, or he reads something in this sentence that the rest of us are not. “Of the reasoning that Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20grounds%20that. Retrieved 6 November 2022. The explanatory term refers to “legal grounds”, that is, grounds based on statute or precedent (previous court cases).
Often written as “on the scene”. (2) The judge ruled (as I can confirm as a journalist) that the city was de facto insolvent and (like me, the journalist) that a solvent city has no legal authority under Chapter 9. However, more specific speakers might avoid mixing “because” and “on site,” so it would probably be good not to generally assume that “on site” usually implies skepticism. “Because” is not a legal term. The situation could have been as follows: the judge granted the Chapter 9 relief application because the city was bankrupt. In this example, we all know that the case was terribly flawed, but the actual judgment was based solely on the statute of limitations. A journalist would say this with a phrase like “reasoning,” even though he knew the judge could have dismissed it for other reasons as well. “Because,” on the other hand, could be interpreted to mean that none of the other problems are legally justified. The language is correct, legally correct and does not mean “because” and a basic understanding of Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings is required to “get”.
It also doesn`t have any shades of sarcasm or anything like that. As for the legal details that Lambie pointed out (both in the comments and in a response), it is quite true that “the city was solvent” is actually a good reason to reject this type of bankruptcy. (At least, as far as I know, not to be an American or a lawyer.) However, I would like to point out that Garner acknowledges this (very, very briefly!) by saying that the article wrongly suggests that the reason is not good. Often, people hope that legal reasoning will reconcile causality with justification and make the terms “because” and “on the spot” interchangeable. Well, overall, I think everyone is right when they say it`s perfectly normal wording, especially for a legal judgment (where does “grounds” = “basis or reason” come from, as far as I know).
Comments are closed.