Maxim 1.5.334
Nothing in vain.
Nil frustra.
Source: Newell v. Wheeler; Wharton, III-205
Difficulty 3/5 — Intermediate
Explanation
The law does nothing in vain — every word in a statute, constitution, or instrument is presumed to have meaning and effect, and no provision should be construed as superfluous or idle.
Where this applies
- A statute grants the governor 'the power to appoint judges,' and the court holds that the word 'appoint' must mean something — it cannot be read as merely advisory, because the law does nothing in vain.
- A constitutional provision guarantees the right to 'a speedy trial,' and the court holds that 'speedy' must have substantive meaning and cannot be treated as an empty aspiration.
- A contract contains a clause requiring 'good faith negotiations' before litigation, and the court enforces it as a binding obligation because every provision in an agreement is presumed to carry real effect.
Legal domains
Cite this maxim
NeCede Max. 1.5.334 — Nothing in vain. — Newell v. Wheeler; Wharton, III-205 (Nil frustra.)
Found an error? Suggest a correction →