A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

Often it just means “will”.

In your context, “should” might be preferable.

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

AFAIK “shall” means it is compulsory.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

AFAIK “shall” means it is compulsory.

Think of the bible Thou shalt not kill.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

Often it just means “will”.

In your context, “should” might be preferable.

That’s interesting. In engineering documents “should” is used to state non-binding advice, whereas “shall” is used for binding instructions, so to my mind “shall” is definitely better than “should” in that context.

Apparently lawyers don’t like it though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

Often it just means “will”.

In your context, “should” might be preferable.

That’s interesting. In engineering documents “should” is used to state non-binding advice, whereas “shall” is used for binding instructions, so to my mind “shall” is definitely better than “should” in that context.

Apparently lawyers don’t like it though.

Then go with “MUST” :)

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

AFAIK “shall” means it is compulsory.

Think of the bible Thou shalt not kill.

Yes, that’s my understanding, and that example also occurred to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

AFAIK “shall” means it is compulsory.

Think of the bible Thou shalt not kill.

Yes, that’s my understanding, and that example also occurred to me.

I had an engineering background so I agree with the Rev “shall” is binding.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Often it just means “will”.

In your context, “should” might be preferable.

That’s interesting. In engineering documents “should” is used to state non-binding advice, whereas “shall” is used for binding instructions, so to my mind “shall” is definitely better than “should” in that context.

Apparently lawyers don’t like it though.

Then go with “MUST” :)

That’s what the lawyers say, but engineering documents are full of “shall“s, which until this morning I thought was quite unambiguous.

In the “completely” meaning of “quite” :)

12.4 When interpreting a Code the word shall shall be interpreted as must

Is there a legal challenge to some Code interpretation?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s interesting. In engineering documents “should” is used to state non-binding advice, whereas “shall” is used for binding instructions, so to my mind “shall” is definitely better than “should” in that context.

Apparently lawyers don’t like it though.

Then go with “MUST” :)

That’s what the lawyers say, but engineering documents are full of “shall“s, which until this morning I thought was quite unambiguous.

In the “completely” meaning of “quite” :)

Lawyers should never be allowed to pontificate on engineering matters. And I wish the “should” could be changed to “shall”

Peak Warming Man said:

Is there a legal challenge to some Code interpretation?

Ask Tau.

Peak Warming Man said:

Is there a legal challenge to some Code interpretation?

Just a discussion on another forum.

They said that lawyers disapprove of the word “shall” because it is ambiguous, and a quick Binge suggests that that is true.

I didn’t know that.

Or maybe I just forgot.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Then go with “MUST” :)

That’s what the lawyers say, but engineering documents are full of “shall“s, which until this morning I thought was quite unambiguous.

In the “completely” meaning of “quite” :)

Lawyers should never be allowed to pontificate on engineering matters. And I wish the “should” could be changed to “shall”

Agreed :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Is there a legal challenge to some Code interpretation?

Just a discussion on another forum.

They said that lawyers disapprove of the word “shall” because it is ambiguous, and a quick Binge suggests that that is true.

I didn’t know that.

Or maybe I just forgot.

Yeah shall is ambiguous in most contexts but there are exceptions.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Is there a legal challenge to some Code interpretation?

Just a discussion on another forum.

They said that lawyers disapprove of the word “shall” because it is ambiguous, and a quick Binge suggests that that is true.

I didn’t know that.

Or maybe I just forgot.

Yeah shall is ambiguous in most contexts but there are exceptions.

Lawyers like quibbling over the meaning of words. An immense money spinner for them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick question:

In wording that specifies procedures to be followed for some activity, does the word “shall” have the same meaning as “must”, or does it imply some level of choice?

For instance, if I wrote:
“The concrete shall have a compressive strength of at least 40 MPa”
does that constitute a firm requirement, or does it imply a recommendation, which can be ignored if you feel so inclined?

In legal terms yes, shall = must

Peak Warming Man said:

12.4 When interpreting a Code the word shall shall be interpreted as must

Like this, unambiguously define important words’ meanings at the start of the document.

When I worked with BMA, “shall” had an “obligatory” or “must” meaning. Particularly in SOPs (standard operating procedures), of which there were thousands.

Never really ate pistachio nuts before but really liking them healthy snack than lollies and cholocate

In this context, they are saying it is a requirement

dv said:

In this context, they are saying it is a requirement

That’s what I thought, but apparently lawyers these days say that shall shall not be used.

requires

transition said:

requires

suggests requirement to perform to some standard

transition said:

transition said:

requires

suggests requirement to perform to some standard

It would have to say mandatory requirement.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

In this context, they are saying it is a requirement

That’s what I thought, but apparently lawyers these days say that shall shall not be used.

Thou shalt is a command,
I shall is an affirmation.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

In this context, they are saying it is a requirement

That’s what I thought, but apparently lawyers these days say that shall shall not be used.

Thou shalt is a command,
I shall is an affirmation.

In modern speak it is thou shalt = you bloodywell will or you must or I’ll break your legs.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s what I thought, but apparently lawyers these days say that shall shall not be used.

Thou shalt is a command,
I shall is an affirmation.

In modern speak it is thou shalt = you bloodywell will or you must or I’ll break your legs.

PERFECT!!!!!

There’s a LAW Suit in the works in DC based upon this very word/ interpretation!

Donald Dump SHALL Turn over his Tax Returns when requested.

QUOTE
The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

roughbarked said:

In modern speak it is thou shalt = you bloodywell will or you must or I’ll break your legs.

:) That would suit me just fine!

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

In modern speak it is thou shalt = you bloodywell will or you must or I’ll break your legs.

PERFECT!!!!!

There’s a LAW Suit in the works in DC based upon this very word/ interpretation!

Donald Dump SHALL Turn over his Tax Returns when requested.

QUOTE
The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

roughbarked said:

In modern speak it is thou shalt = you bloodywell will or you must or I’ll break your legs.

:) That would suit me just fine!

I’m happy if it goes viral.

roughbarked said:

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

PERFECT!!!!!

There’s a LAW Suit in the works in DC based upon this very word/ interpretation!

Donald Dump SHALL Turn over his Tax Returns when requested.

QUOTE
The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

roughbarked said:

In modern speak it is thou shalt = you bloodywell will or you must or I’ll break your legs.

:) That would suit me just fine!

I’m happy if it goes viral.

Funny Again! :-D
According to THE Dump’s NY Associates & Connections
Having One’s Legs Broken has long been standard practice.