I would certainly agree that "including" certainly carries the implicitly of "not limited to"; however, ns think this redundant phrasing is merely used in order to emphasize the fact that what complies with is no intended to it is in a finish list.

You are watching: Includes but not limited to meaning



I think the allude of this typical bit of ‘legalese’ is that in situation anyone should assume that including does average ‘limited to’ they have no recourse to case they were misled by believing the list in question was a complete list.


Usually (and especially in law) you incorporate the phrase "but not limited to" to avoid ejusdem generis. Because that example, think about this phrase:

As provided in this statute, "vehicles" shall mean powered vehicles consisting of cars, buses, recreational vehicles, and trucks.

In this case, one deserve to make an dispute that airplanes and also off-road dust bikes room not included. All of the instances are highway vehicles that move people and cargo.

By contrast, if it particularly said, "but not limited to", that would show that whole categories of item were not reflected in the examples. In that case, girlfriend shouldn"t infer the it wasn"t intended to include things prefer airplanes and boats. You"d have to look at the rest of the statute to check out if that made feeling to incorporate those things.


There is not really something implying the "including" go not likewise mean "but not minimal to", unless you point out by saying "including yet limited to".

I think that is redundant and actually looks fairly ugly through the compulsory use of this expression in for example EULAs and comparable documents, yet lawyers will most likely keep making use of it, "just to be safe".


I think it is faint is some situations to just write "including", if you likewise mean "not restricted to" (although i agree it does not make a quite sentence). An instance from a beat that ns am functioning on in ~ the moment (listing props);

Scary Creatures (can include); Mummy Vampire Frankenstein Goblin

This to me states that girlfriend are restricted to those listed, when the next example explicitly states that you space not limited.

See more: Can I Use Sprite Instead Of Club Soda To Make Mojito? Can I Replace Club Soda With Sprite

options for Scary Creatures (can include, however not minimal to); Mummy Vampire Frankenstein Goblin

I to be trying to say that in some situations it is essential to usage the term, though ns don"t think the is a nice means of act it. For this reason the answer to the question needs to be "no".

Highly energetic question. Earn 10 call (not counting the combination bonus) in order to answer this question. The reputation necessity helps defend this inquiry from spam and also non-answer activity.

Not the price you're feather for? Browse various other questions tagged semantics or asking your very own question.

site style / logo © 2021 ridge Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa. Rev2021.10.29.40598

your privacy

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree stack Exchange can store cookies on your machine and disclose info in accordance v our Cookie Policy.