In this context, the term including, but not limited, is used to indicate that all information entrusted to Part A is confidential information by third parties, but also information of Company A, Company B and Company C. But Sutherland`s statutes and legal construction have a different point of view: „The word „implies“ is generally a notion of extension, not restriction…  And a review of the Colorado cases suggests that the phrase „but not limited to“ is not necessary: we did not find cases from Colorado that went the other way. So we threw the net a little wider, and we found Shelby Cnty. State Bank v. Van Diest Supply Co. In this case, it was a pawn in „all stocks, including, but not limited to, agrochemicals, fertilizers and fertilizers that were sold to Debtor…“[added light.]  In this case, the 7th round found that it would be „bizarre, as a commercial matter, to claim a total pledge and to describe in detail only a small part of that set.“ Thus, the court interpreted the word „including“ as restrictive, and the judges scoffed that the contract used the phrase „but not limited to.“  This sentence is therefore not a guarantee anyway; You probably shouldn`t have much comfort. In this recent article, I wrote about a tweet from Bryan Garner about inclusion, but not limited to. Shortly thereafter, Garner posted „LawProse Lesson #226“ on the same subject. As his article offers more details than his tweet, I thought I should check it out, but I found it reflected his useless approach to contract language. Let me explain.
It turns out that the judges speak the same English as you and I; they understand the meaning of „includes“ and „including.“ Instead of listing all possible third-party information that can be entrusted to Part A, the phrase „including, but not limited to“ is used to maintain the overall scope of the engagement, but also to provide some details. From his point of view, you should define the term „include“ in such a way that it means „inclusive, but not limited to“ so that you avoid interpretation problems when you list certain elements or examples in your contract. How do you use inclusion, but not just one sentence? [Calls] The description does not only say that it covers „all agricultural machinery“ without more. On the contrary, the description contains the qualifying language, „including, but not only for the tractor, plow and disc.“ The qualifying language gave the complainant and others that the funding statement [request] was intended to cover all tractors, all the debtor`s plow and plow discs, as well as all similar agricultural machinery. [Added highlight.] The comma before including it indicates that a new clause, even if it is not finished, must follow, and the comma before, but after, indicates a slight interruption of that clause. The comma between the run and the jump shows that both must be read as part of a list, but that a comma is not necessary after the jump, as this becomes superfluous. This means that these things are part of something bigger, and the biggest thing can also have other parts. The alphabet contains z.B. the letters A to E as well as J, K and W.