BON

Definition

A French and Law French term meaning "good" or "sufficient in law," used in two distinct legal contexts: 1. Historical French royal finance: A bon was a royal order or check drawn on the treasury, a form of warrant for payment. The phrase bon pour ("good for") preceded the stated sum — as in bon pour mille livres, "good for a thousand livres" — functioning as the operative language of authorization. 2. Modern civil law (especially French-derived systems): A clause added to a cedule (a written obligation or promissory instrument) when the body of the instrument is not in the handwriting of the person signing it. In such cases, the signer adds a bon pour clause — written in their own hand — stating the amount they bind themselves to pay. This handwritten acknowledgment of the sum serves as evidence of genuine assent and guards against fraud or alteration. The requirement traces to French civil law practice and the writings of Pothier. In old English and Law French usage, bon also appeared simply as an adjective meaning "good" or "legally sufficient," as in phrases qualifying writs or obligations.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An indigenous Tibetan religion, in many ways akin to Tibetan Buddhism. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Good; valid as security for something. The Webster's 1913 entry captures the adjectival sense closest to the legal meaning — "good" or "valid" — but the legal term carries a specific technical function in documentary and financial instruments that the common definition does not convey. The Wiktionary definition reflects an entirely unrelated modern usage (the Tibetan religion Bön) that has no connection to the legal term.

Common Confusion

BON vs. BOND: The similarity in spelling and the shared context of financial obligation causes occasional confusion in historical sources. A bon is a clause or order acknowledging a sum; a bond is a formal sealed instrument creating a legal obligation. They are distinct instruments. Researchers encountering bon pour in transcribed French or civil law materials should not read it as a variant spelling of bond. BON vs. BONUS: In Latin-derived legal writing, bonus (the Latin root of bon) appears as an adjective in phrases such as bona fide and bona. Bon in Law French is the same root but functions differently — as a standalone term or clause prefix in documentary practice, not as a modifier in the bona/bonus adjectival sense.

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers are most likely to encounter bon in one of three contexts: (1) transcriptions of old French royal financial instruments or histories of French public finance; (2) civil law treatises — particularly Pothier's work on obligations — discussing the formalities of written contracts; or (3) Law French glosses in English common law materials where bon appears as a simple qualifier meaning "good" or "sufficient." The civil law usage of the bon pour clause is the most practically significant for legal researchers. Pothier's treatment (Obligations, Part 4, ch. 1, art. 2) is the primary authority cited by both Black's editions, and researchers consulting that source will find the clause discussed in the context of preventing fraud in written obligations — a concern that connects to broader questions about the authenticity and enforceability of handwritten instruments in civil law systems. Researchers working in Louisiana law, Quebec law, or other French-derived civil law jurisdictions may find the bon pour clause relevant to historical contract disputes where the sufficiency of a written acknowledgment is at issue. The concept has no direct common law analogue, which can create interpretive gaps when civil and common law sources are compared. The Burrill entry is notably fragmented in the source material provided, drifting into an unrelated discussion of boc land before reaching bon. This is a product of alphabetical proximity in the original dictionary and should not be read as substantively connecting those topics.

Historical Dictionary Support

Black's (1st and 2nd editions) are in close agreement, treating bon across its two main senses — the historical royal check and the modern civil law clause — and citing the same authorities (Stephens' Lectures and Pothier). The entries are nearly identical across editions, suggesting the term's legal meaning was well settled by the time of compilation and did not require revision. Burrill's entry is substantively unhelpful as reproduced, its treatment of bon interrupted by surrounding material. It does confirm the Law French adjectival sense ("good; sufficient in law") and traces the root to Latin bonus/bonum, which is consistent with the other dictionaries. Bouvier's entry as reproduced contains no relevant material on bon, the excerpt relating to an unrelated topic (somnambulism and criminal responsibility). Researchers should consult Bouvier directly for any treatment of the term; the source material here does not support attribution of a Bouvier definition. None of the historical dictionaries address the bon pour clause in depth beyond the Pothier citation. Researchers seeking fuller treatment should go directly to Pothier's Treatise on Obligations.

Jurisdictional Note

The bon pour clause as a formal requirement in written obligations is a civil law concept with no precise common law equivalent. It is most relevant in jurisdictions with French civil law heritage, including Louisiana and Quebec. In purely common law jurisdictions, the underlying concern — ensuring the signer genuinely acknowledged the sum — is addressed through different doctrines (consideration, the parol evidence rule, requirements of a signed writing).

Related Terms