A reader asked the following question of To The Point: “What is the legal difference between may, should, and would and how does it differ in general use in the English language?”
Good question! Grammatically, the word “may” indicates (1) a possibility or (2) a requesting or granting of permission. See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 808 (1973). For example:
- He may come to the party.
The above sentence could mean either:
- He might come to the party.
or - I give him permission to come to the party.
From a legal perspective, however, many courts have construed the word “may” to mean “must” or “shall,” especially when such an interpretation is necessary to effectuate legislative intent. See the definition of “may” in Black’s Law Dictionary 819 (8th ed. 2005). In other words, the courts view the word as ambiguous and apply a definition in cases dealing with statutes that is consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes.
Because the word “may” is ambiguous, avoid using it when you mean “must.” Similarly, avoid using the word “may” when expressing a conditional state because it does have different meanings in ordinary, non-legal usage (as explained above). For example, rather than write the following ambiguous sentence:
- The plaintiff may seek summary judgment.
You could be more explicit with one of the following sentences:
- The court’s rules permit the plaintiff to seek summary judgment.
- The plaintiff is considering seeking summary judgment.
Stay tuned for a discussion of “should” and “would.” Have a question? Email us at contact@tothepointpubs.com.