I'm aware of the difference between the verbs "affect" and "effect", and refer to the latter. Why use "give effect", when it can be substituted with a one-word synonym like "effect" or "effectuate" ?

I link to many uses by the SCC and UKSC, or Acts of Parliament in Canada or the UK. E.g., in Morris-Garner & Anor v One Step (Support) Ltd [2018] UKSC 20, Lord Reed wrote:

  1. It is necessary next to consider some basic principles of the law relating to damages for breach of contract: principles which it will be necessary to bear in mind at a later stage of this judgment, when considering the case of Attorney General v Blake and its aftermath. Damages in contract serve a different remedial purpose from damages in tort, reflecting the different nature of the obligation breached by the wrongdoer in each case. The law of tort is concerned with civil wrongs, that is to say with breaches of duties imposed by the law, sometimes generally and sometimes on those who are party to particular relationships or have assumed particular responsibilities, which protect the interests of others in respect of such matters as their bodily integrity, their liberty, their property, their privacy and their reputation. Damages in tort are generally intended to place the claimant as nearly as possible in the same position as he would have been in if the tort had not been committed. The law of contract, on the other hand, gives effect to [I bolded.] consensual agreements entered into by particular individuals in their own interests. Remedies granted by the courts are designed to give effect to what was voluntarily undertaken by the parties. Damages in contract are therefore intended to place the claimant in the same position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed.
  • I think this a non-constructive subjective question. Personally, I avoid using the verb ‘effect’ because it can be confused with ‘affect,’ and I would not use ‘effectuate’ because it sounds technical and awkward. I suspect that your observation is explained by others sharing my preferences, but I suppose you’d have to do a survey to find out. – sjy Nov 9 '18 at 2:25

Because "effectuate" and "effect" are not synonyms of "give effect to."

Contract law gives effect to agreements, but it doesn't effect agreements. The exchange of promises for consideration effectuate a contract, but they don't give effect to the contract.

  • Please expound your last para.? I don't understand the distinctions. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Nov 9 '18 at 4:33
  • I don't know how to expound on this one. They are different words with different meanings. The dictionary may be useful. – bdb484 Nov 9 '18 at 4:44

Because they mean different things:

  • Effectuate means to put into force or operation.
  • Give effect to means to cause something to become capable of producing an effect.
  • Can you please expound? How does "put into force or operation" differ from "cause something to become capable of producing an effect"? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Dec 29 '18 at 21:45
  • Can I follow up please? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 20 at 8:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.