In settling a case recently the judge took exception to the use of this word in the proposed order that one of the parties "remove or effectively conceal" a particular sign. I assume he did so on the basis that "effectively" is ambiguous and could mean either "efficaciously" or "in effect", which is slightly different. So we removed the word altogether, I suppose with no change of meaning. Is "effectively" just unnecessary verbiage? Are there situations in which its inclusion makes a difference?
jj
I have no idea what the legal meaning of "effectively" is, but in the context I would imagine the judge was saying "conceal or do not conceal". "Effectively concealing" in the context is almost a tautology, but could be taken to be a vague statement meaning to "appear to conceal", i.e. not necessarily concealing at all. Good call, judge! Was he a Kiwi?
In my opinion, the judge was right in objecting to the use of "effectively" in this context: it would have left it to the discretion of the interested party how well they would conceal the sign, opening up the venue for renewed litigation.
I think there are situations where the use of "effectively" may be justified. If e.g. it is highly unlikely that overwhelming debts can be repaid in the foreseeable future, one might say the company is effectively (i.e. for all practical purposes) broke.
I agree with CK that "effectively" could be a weasel word, that would allow owners
of sign to try some such trick as using small print on sign, and claiming that
"effectively" concealed the sign.
I should think that "effectively concealing" a sign would have to mean that it was placed in such a way as to require a special effort to see it, such as placing it on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
>hat it was placed in such a way as to require a special effort to see it, such as placing it on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
A set of directions that will no doubt be useful to the hundreds of Dorklanders who have been told that their homes are going to be demolished to make way for an expressway bypass.
consider yourself all honorary lawyers - I tend to agree with CapK, but the intent was to import notions of properly", "efficaciously", "completely", etc. As a matter of language, if I have partly concealed something isn't that a subset of or variation on my having concealed it??
jj
if I have partly concealed something isn't that a subset of or variation on my having concealed it??
Well, I wouldn't have thought of it as a subset, Sweetie, though now that you've brought it up, I can see it. I would think of it in terms of degrees: partially concealed, mostly concealed; possibly even exact measurements: 50% concealed, or whatever.
Though if you're talking about a sign, exact measurements of concealment are going to be virtually impossible to get--you'd have to measure too many variables to be practical (from all possible points of view, all poss. distances, all poss. heights of the viewer, etc.). So a statement about how well it is concealed is necessarily going to be subjective, barring it being so well-concealed that no one could question it: completely covered by something opaque, for ex. This is one reason I've always been glad I'm not a judge; so many of these things (such as what constitutes pornography, for ex.) must be assessed according to what "a reasonable person" would think, or something equally vague.
I think we're suffering from a lack of details. If the sign in question contained one offensive word, concealing that one word may count as "effectively concealing" the sign.
I've always been glad I'm not a judge; so many of these things (such as what constitutes pornography, for ex.) must be assessed according to what "a reasonable person" would think, or something equally vague.
Isn't it interesting that we cannot define what porn is, but we all recognize it when we see it!
we all recognize it when we see it
But do we all agree in each particular case?
we all recognize it when we see it
But do we all agree in each particular case?
Since when have we all agreed in any particular case?
We all recognize it when we see it.
But do we all agree in each particular case?
Since when have we all agreed in any particular case?
*Rimshot!
Well I do. I agree with everyone here in that "effectively" is effectively used in the proposed court writ, and that the judge is a twerp.
The act of concealing is nowise an act of concealment so the addition of "effectively" has the effect of making the desired court order more precise.
"... "effectively" is ambiguous and could mean either "efficaciously" or "in effect", which is slightly different."
What?
I sleep well at night knowing that the lesser of the least contributors to this fine board would not mistake the above.
Ah, sweet sleep, secure in the knowledge that no one here is a twerp.
Goodnight sweet princes and princesses of Awad,
Milo. Zzzzzzzz.