within the meaning and intent of

English translation: as (these terms) are to be understood with the intended meaning (definition) in

15:29 Mar 4, 2020
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general)
English term or phrase: within the meaning and intent of
Context:

The child, AAA, is presently in substantial risk of imminent harm, abuse, or neglect, within the meaning and intent of Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, which is likely to cause their physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired due the circumstances and acts or omissions of the parents set forth above
Nam Vo
Vietnam
Local time: 04:07
Selected answer:as (these terms) are to be understood with the intended meaning (definition) in
Explanation:
within the meaning and intent of Chapter 39

the terms substantial risk of imminent harm, abuse, or neglect ...likely to cause their physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired due the circumstances and acts or omissions of the parents set forth above

are to be understood as they are defined or to be understood or read within Chapter 39 (presumably defined there?)

and how these are to be used in defining "abuse" and "neglect" etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 mins (2020-03-04 15:42:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

so, it's saying that if we use these terms as they are defined or to be understood, then

"The child, AAA, is presently in substantial risk of imminent harm, abuse, or neglect...."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 mins (2020-03-04 15:43:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

intent=intention

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 days (2020-03-14 12:13:21 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

glad to have helped
Selected response from:

Yvonne Gallagher
Ireland
Local time: 22:07
Grading comment
Thank you very much :)
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
5as meant by
Ali Sharifi
5in accordance with
Mark Robertson
4 +1both the strict literal meaning of the wording and the lawmakers' intent
B D Finch
4 +1as (these terms) are to be understood with the intended meaning (definition) in
Yvonne Gallagher


Discussion entries: 5





  

Answers


49 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
as meant by


Explanation:
as meant by

Ali Sharifi
United States
Local time: 17:07
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in Persian (Farsi)Persian (Farsi)

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  writeaway: very convincing refs to back 100% confidence
18 mins
  -> We are helping the asker and not giving lectures on law.

agree  philgoddard: Or "as defined by".
1 hr
  -> Thank you,

neutral  Yvonne Gallagher: CL5=100% with no explanation? Oh, Phil is repeating something I already said. How kind of him.
2 hrs

disagree  AllegroTrans: over simplified
1 day 21 hrs
  -> Go ahead, give a long lecture,
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
in accordance with


Explanation:
Just formulaic and tautologous legalese.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2020-03-04 16:52:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

There is no functional difference between the meaning of "meaning" and "intent" in this legal formula.

Mark Robertson
Local time: 22:07
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 56

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  AllegroTrans: there is a nuance; per the word of the statute + to achieve what the words intend
1 hr
  -> see discussion entry

disagree  B D Finch: There is an important difference and the literal meaning of wording may conflict with the lawmakers' intent. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-la...
2 hrs
  -> see discussion entry

neutral  Yvonne Gallagher: Asker needs an explanation and yes, there is a difference
2 hrs
  -> see discussion entry

disagree  Daryo: oversimplified
10 hrs

agree  philgoddard: This is fine too.
13 hrs

agree  Clauwolf
19 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
both the strict literal meaning of the wording and the lawmakers' intent


Explanation:
It is possible for the strict literal meaning of the wording of a law to be at odds with, or defective in expressing the intention of the lawmakers who passed the act. So, "within the meaning and intent" means that if the intention of the lawmakers can be determined then a strict (nit-picking) application of the literal meaning of the words should not be allowed to frustrate that intention. Also the intention might go beyond what is contained in the wording, or with the passing of time and the arising of new situations, a purely literal interpretation may have become difficult to apply to particular circumstances.

So, evidence from e.g. the relevant debate in Parliament when an act was passed, might be relevant.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-la...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 hrs (2020-03-05 12:49:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

For those who don't see the purpose of the above link, here are a couple of extracts:
"The literal rule requires courts to interpret statutes in their plain, literal and ordinary sense. The courts will not examine the intention of Parliament. This rule is used frequently as judges are not authorised to make laws and by following the statute to the letter judges cannot be accused of making law.
...

"The Golden Rule, used where the literal rule would result in an absurdity or an obnoxious result. The court investigates whether the statute wording conveys Parliament’s intention. See Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89 a son murdered his mother, she had not made a Will and her son stood to inherit her entire estate from her death. The statute was clear however, the son stood to benefit from his crime which would be unjust. The positives are that judgments are usually parallel with the legislator and errors in drafting are amended before awkward precedents are set, thus closing loopholes. Using common sense within law usually provides justice restoring public confidence in the legal system. It is problematic though as judges have power to interpret the statute as they wish, changing or adding to its meaning. It flouts the separation of powers and judges cannot be influenced by injustice without the presence of absurdity."

B D Finch
France
Local time: 23:07
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 72

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Mark Robertson: 1. The fundamental principle is judicial ignorance of the parliamentary process, i.e. Hansard cannot be referred to by the courts when construing statute law. The inroads made in Pepper v Hart have since been so limited that they are virtually meaningless
47 mins
  -> But the text is about Florida, not England and Wales.

agree  Daryo: the peculiarities of UK laws / judicial system can not change the meaning of terms, especially when they are used in Florida
8 hrs
  -> Thanks Daryo

neutral  Yvonne Gallagher: all over the house as usual with your "explanation". What is the point of your link?//Asker is simply looking for an explanation, not a treatise on law! Or regarding taxi drivers delivering bales of hay!
16 hrs
  -> See added note// Some of us prefer lateral thinking to narrow mindedness.

agree  AllegroTrans
2 days 6 hrs
  -> Thanks AT
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

11 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
as (these terms) are to be understood with the intended meaning (definition) in


Explanation:
within the meaning and intent of Chapter 39

the terms substantial risk of imminent harm, abuse, or neglect ...likely to cause their physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired due the circumstances and acts or omissions of the parents set forth above

are to be understood as they are defined or to be understood or read within Chapter 39 (presumably defined there?)

and how these are to be used in defining "abuse" and "neglect" etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 mins (2020-03-04 15:42:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

so, it's saying that if we use these terms as they are defined or to be understood, then

"The child, AAA, is presently in substantial risk of imminent harm, abuse, or neglect...."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 mins (2020-03-04 15:43:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

intent=intention

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 days (2020-03-14 12:13:21 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

glad to have helped

Yvonne Gallagher
Ireland
Local time: 22:07
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 127
Grading comment
Thank you very much :)
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you very much :)


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Tina Vonhof (X): 'within the meaning and intent of Chapter 39' is succinct.
28 mins
  -> Many thanks:-)

agree  AllegroTrans: yes, sort of "in the word and spirit of Chapter 39"
2 hrs
  -> Many thanks:-)

neutral  B D Finch: I would have agreed, but as words don't have intentions, only people (+ my dog and other animals) do, it's necessary to spell out whose intentions they are.// Someone has to have intended the meaning.
3 hrs
  -> I never said "intentionS) splitting hairs.https://dictionary.law.com/De Intent. A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end. ...

disagree  Daryo: it's the "intent" of the whole law [i.e. what's the aim/the point of it], not the "intended meaning" of any individual term used. Not so small "nuance". // You just forgot completely (didn't see?) the bit about the "intent" of the lawmakers.
11 hrs
  -> You and BDF misreading what I actually wrote as usual. I never mentioned persons or individuals or "small nuances" AT ALL//Do you ever give it a rest??? CLUELESS!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search