Talk:void ab initio

RFD discussion: June–July 2019
This seems SOP: once you see the etymology, you don't need to look at the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it's SOP (so: delete); ab initio has a legal definition already (which may or may not need tweaking), and something can also be, , or conversely , , etc. - -sche (discuss) 08:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Note that I am the creator of the page. Now that I review the term I agree that it is just SOP. I've gone ahead and removed the link to void ab initio on ab initio. I'm curious why you think the legal definition of ab initio might need tweaking.&mdash;T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 16:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the page, as you, the creator, have admitted it was created in error. If you ever wish to obtain a full copy of the page for your own purposes, you can let me know. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Concerning the legal definition, there need not be any document involved. It can be an oral agreement, or a situation arising by someone performing an act (the classical example is entering someone’s home). Let us call this “the matter” (under consideration). Now a dispute may arise whether some attribute (e.g., “salient”) applies to the matter. In some cases, this may be time-dependent, like after someone was informed of something the matter became salient, but not a moment earlier. The statement that the matter was salient ab initio then means that the matter always was salient, unconditionally and not time-dependent, from the moment it arose. Replacing “the matter” by “agreement” and “salient” by “void”, the statement that an agreement was void ab initio means that at no time had the agreement binding force (for example because it requires one party to perform an illegal act and is therefore void under standing law – also if the parties were unaware at the time that the act in question is illegal). --Lambiam 14:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. Do you know if there exists a term that refers to anything that is has worth or meaning in the legal system? If not, I think the best thing would probably be to list things ("a document, action, agreement, etc.").&mdash;T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 17:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn’t straightaway, which is why I phrased things in the cumbersome way I did. I have not looked at the definitions in various dictionaries; perhaps one will offer a usable idea. --Lambiam 22:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After reviewing definitions and uses, I think “agreement or situation” is sufficiently broad. To delineate its scope more precisely, I suggest the label “”. --Lambiam 11:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The main things that "agreement or situation" doesn't cover are laws, which technically can be argued to fall under "agreement", though I don't think most people think of the word "agreement" that way. I also don't think judgement or decision by courts are covered by "agreement or situation" which is ab initio is definitely applied to. I would also say that it would probably be easier to just incorporate "of the legality of" and any list of things into the definition rather than in a label. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)