comprehensive effect of a contract/right

[thtoan79]

Hello,

Please read these sentences:

"We are of opinion, therefore, that there is nothing as a matter of principle or in the authorities which requires us to hold that genuine contracts of agency like those before us, however comprehensive as a mass or whole in their effect, are violations of the Anti-Trust Act. " (Source: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/220/220.US.373.72.html, the first sentence of the paragraph 17)

"The existence of a Bill of Rights in South Africa introduces, as it were, a blueprint for the way in which the common law of employment and statutory rights should supplement one another.Both must be interpreted in such a way as to give comprehensive effect,between them,to the right to‘fair labour practices’ as promised by section 23(1) of the Constitution and international law." ( ftp://ftp.uwc.ac.za/users/DMS/Clint.../Oil on troubled waters revision 03-11-07.pdf, page 29, the third paragraph)

what does it mean when these authors say "a contract/right takes comprehensive effect" (Is the meaning of "comprehensive effect" when used with "right" and when used with "contract" the same?)

Thank you so much.

 

[Nunty]

Legal English has some very special meanings and usages that are different from those in "regular" English. I've added a "Law" tag to the thread; maybe one of our lawyer-members will come along to help.

 

[thtoan79]

Thank you Nunty, but I wonder a member of this forum can tag something or only the moderators can do that

 

[EStjarn]

Hello thtoan,

I would say that "comprehensive" in those contexts means: "of broad scope or content; including all or much," (Collins English Dictionary).

That use of "comprehensive" has nothing to do with understanding, as in "I comprehend most of the course material."

There's a rather well-known English Grammar called A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), which was said to be "the greatest of contemporary grammars, because it is the most thorough and detailed we have."

 

[thtoan79]

thank you, EStjarn.

However, there is a problem, to me, there are two ways to understand the term "comprehensive":

1. "including all or most of respects of the contract"

2. "without any provision partly or completely invalidated"

This is quite academic and specific, I hope that somebody can tell me what to choose.

 

[EStjarn]

Let's make it easier for potential repliers to get a grasp of the sentence.

First, it seems your link isn't taking us to the right page. Here's one that should. It's a U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. General Electric Co, from 1926. As for context, here's from the syllabus:

1. Through a system of contracts between a company which owned the patents for electric lamps with tungsten filaments and manufactured most of those sold and a large number of wholesale and retail dealers in electrical supplies, the dealers were appointed agents of the company to sell, on commission, the lamps...

Held, that the dealers were genuine agents, not purchasers in disguise, and that the plan was not a device to fix prices after sale and to restrain trade and exercise monopoly in the lamps in violation of the Anti-Trust Act.

Second, there are five instances of 'comprehensive' or 'comprehensiveness' in the text. The following is the first, continuing from the syllabus:

2. The circumstance that the agents were in their regular business merchants, and, under a prior arrangement, had bought the lamps and sold them as their own did not prevent this change in their relation to the company.

3. Nor did the size and comprehensiveness of the scheme bring it within the Anti-Trust Law.

And the topic sentence again: "We are of opinion therefore that there is nothing as a matter of principle or in the authorities which requires us to hold that genuine contracts of agency like those before us, however comprehensive as a mass or whole in their effect, are violations of the Anti-Trust Act."

I think "comprehensive" in the topic sentence refers to the number of agency contracts, the fact that there were so many. It was not just one or two, but supposedly hundreds.

(For reference, there's a parallel thread on practically the same topic.)