On the Grounds Legal Term

“Because” can get very complicated. “On the grounds that” goes straight to the point. “Because” involves a whole mosaic of physical, social, legal and pragmatic issues that began with the Big Bang and ended with a legal decision. We do not usually account for all this tapestry, but it is obvious that the judge`s personal opinions, political pressures, etc. influence his decision. It may be interesting or even useful to understand all the elements that go into the decision-making process, but it is not a legal doctrine. By focusing on the legal doctrine presented by the judge, the journalist limits the article to the main point that really matters. “On the grounds that” tells the reader that this is what is happening. 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”. Alice would ask for a refund on the grounds that the product was not as described. verb (used with object) – place on a foundation; fix firmly; settle or settle; establish. “Joe” is charged because he was seen urinating on a police officer`s car at 4 a.m. In this case, the “reason” for Joe`s arrest was that he urinated in the car. Do you know WHY we say that? First, we have a constitution. Second, I agree with FumbleFingers that this page is dedicated to English in general, not just the jargon of the US bankruptcy jurisdiction. 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. “Of the reasoning that Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20grounds%20that. Retrieved 6 November 2022. 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. 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.” 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). But I think Garner`s view is that there`s no reason not to use a simpler phrase like “Weil.” 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. In simple cases where both terms might work, the authors prefer “because” for brevity. However, in more complex cases where causality and justification are not as interchangeable, authors may need to provide the most detailed “on justification”. As many others have said, the fundamental answer to your question is “`on the grounds that` does not indicate that the reason is invalid.” However, I do not agree with the currently highest-rated answer (whether the distinction relates to whether the journalist knows or accepts that the reasoning was correct). Justification refers to “legal grounds”, that is, grounds based on legislation or precedent (previous court cases).

Often written as “on the scene”. Often, people hope that legal reasoning will reconcile causality with justification and make the terms “because” and “on the spot” interchangeable. 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. The fact is, if someone has reasons for an argument to do something, then those reasons can be part of why they would do it, so we could say that “because” can sometimes be a somewhat bizarre substitute for “on the scene.” And if we assume that people generally want to comply with the law within a simple legal framework, then we can probably simplify the examples above, which would then be basically the same thing. Undoubtedly, the rapporteur used “on the basis of reasoning that” because of the recognition that the judge`s decision involved several considerations, including whether the city was indeed insolvent within the meaning of one of the meanings of that word and whether bankruptcy was the only legal basis for the relief provided for in Chapter 9. In fact, I wouldn`t be surprised if the journalist had copied this sentence from a legal summary or from the statement itself. But I think the spirit of Foskey`s answer is correct: the journalist tries to report as accurately as possible, and is therefore used “for the reason that” because judicial decisions almost always depend on several considerations. (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. Instead, the justification is used when more than one reason may apply.

It specifies which of these reasons applies or applies. “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. 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. A judge may reject or uphold an application (in this case, an application for protection under Chapter 9) on the ground that [etc.]. It depends on the context. 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. Legal frameworks may be a particular exception, as ideally the causes of action are well aligned with the legal justification. If such an orientation exists and both terms work, “because” would probably be preferable, as it is shorter/simpler, while the use of the more detailed “in the field” may suggest that things are not so simple. n.

the basis for an action based on legal grounds and alleged facts that, if proven, would constitute all the “elements” required by law. Examples: To have a cause of action for breach of contract, there must be an offer of acceptance; liability in tort (tort) must result from negligence or wilful misconduct and non-performance; for defamation, an untruth must have been published, which is particularly prejudicial; and in all cases, there must be a connection between the defendant`s actions and the damages. In many lawsuits, there are multiple pleas that are set out separately, such as fraud, breach of contract and debt, or negligence and deliberate destruction of property. 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. “Because” and “on the scene” mean two different things; They are generally not interchangeable. Grounds are more than just reasons for a court to order a remedy. It is the grounds provided for by law that serve as the basis for the application for discharge.

For example, a woman may sue her neighbour for trespassing on the grounds that her fence was erected across her border. Her real reason for the lawsuit could be that she doesn`t like the loud music he plays on her stereo and wants to get him in trouble. However, if its fence does infringe its property, it has grounds of action based on trespassing. 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.

[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]