Legal Definition and Related Resources of Falsa demonstratio non nocet

A false description does not vitiate. 6 Term R. 676. See 2 Story (U. S.) 291; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 301; Broom, Leg. Max. (3d London Ed.) 562; 2 Pars. Cont. 62, note, 69, note, 72, note, 76, note; 4 C. B. 328; 11 C. B. 208; 14 C. B. 133.

Browse

You might be interested in these references tools:

This definition of Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet Is based on the The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary . This entry needs to be proofread.

Vocabularies (Semantic Web Information)

Falsa demonstratio non nocet in the Dictionary of Law consisting of Judicial Definitions and Explanations of Words, Phrases and Maxims

An erroneous designation does not impair. See further Demonstratio.
Erroneous description does not vitiate. Spoken of as the maxim falsa demonstratio. The maxim is of universal application as far as it means that we may reject, as surplusage, a false description not vital to the subject of the controversy. Broom, Max. 629.

Note: This legal definition of Falsa demonstratio non nocet in the Dictionary of Law (English and American Jurisprudence) is from 1893.

“Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet” in Maritime Law

Note: There is more information on maritime/admiralty law here.

The following is a definition of “Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet”, produced by Tetley, in the context of admiralty law: An abbreviation of the Latin maxim “falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat”, meaning that a mere false description does no harm if there be sufficient certainty as to the object concerned. See Matthews v. Gillespie 120 S.E. 324 at p. 327 (Va. 1923): “It is one of the maxims of the law that a false description does not render a deed or other writing inoperative, if, after rejecting so much of the description as is false, there remains a sufficient description to ascertain with legal certainty the subject matter to which the instrument applies. This rule of construction is said to be derived from the civil law.” See in particular Adamastos Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1959] A.C. 133 at p. 154, [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 at p. 81 (H.L.), where a charterparty incorporated a Paramount Clause which provided: “This bill of lading shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States….” Applying the maxim, Viscount Simonds held: “This bill of lading’ is a conspicuous example of the maxim ‘falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat’. There can be no doubt what is the corpus. It is the charterparty to which the clause is attached.” Accordingly, the charterparty was held to have been intended by the parties to incorporate U.S. COGSA 1936.