Definition
IMPLEMENT functions in legal contexts primarily as a verb and, historically, as a noun, with distinct meanings in each use.
1. (verb) To carry out, give effect to, or put into practical operation a law, judgment, agreement, obligation, or policy. Legislation is implemented through agency rulemaking, executive action, or subordinate enactment. Contracts are implemented through performance of their terms. Court orders are implemented through compliance by the parties or enforcement by officers.
2. (noun, historical and Scottish law) An article, tool, or instrument used in the performance of work or labor. In older property and succession law, "implements" referred to tangible personal property—tools, utensils, and equipment—associated with the use or occupation of land or a trade, and could carry specific significance in the context of what passed under a bequest, farm lease, or tenancy.
The noun sense is largely archaic in American legal writing. The verb sense dominates modern usage and appears extensively in statutory drafting, administrative law, contract performance doctrine, and constitutional litigation.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To bring about; to put into practice; to carry out. Also, in technical contexts, to realize a specification such as an algorithm or protocol.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): That which fulfills or supplies a want or use; especially an instrument, tool, or utensil supplying a requisite to an end—as the implements of trade, husbandry, or war.
Editorial note: The common meaning has undergone a reversal in grammatical function. In 1913, "implement" was primarily a noun (a tool or instrument). In modern usage—both common and legal—it is predominantly a verb (to carry out or put into effect). Legal researchers encountering "implements" in older documents, particularly in property, tenancy, or estate records, should read it as a noun denoting physical goods or equipment, not as the modern verbal sense of execution or performance.
---
Common Confusion
The noun and verb senses create confusion in historical legal sources. A 19th-century deed or will clause transferring "implements" conveyed tangible personal property; a modern statute directing an agency to "implement" a program conveys an obligation of action. These are structurally unrelated despite identical spelling. Researchers should also distinguish "implement" (to execute or give effect) from "enforce" (to compel compliance with) and "enact" (to formally pass into law). A legislature enacts; an agency implements; a court enforces. Conflating these distorts administrative law analysis.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The verb "implement" is load-bearing language in administrative and regulatory law. When a statute directs an agency to "implement" a provision, courts have examined whether that language confers rulemaking discretion, creates a mandatory duty, or establishes a timeline for agency action. Researchers working with regulatory records should note how implementing language was drafted: "shall implement," "may implement," and "implement as practicable" carry materially different legal weight.
In treaty and international law research, "implementation" is the operative concept for how international obligations become enforceable domestic law—a critical distinction in dualist legal systems.
For historical corpus research, the noun sense appears in agricultural leases, inventories, estate records, and Scottish law materials well into the 19th century. Burrill flags this sense explicitly, and researchers using older English and Scottish legal materials should not assume the word signals a duty of performance when it may instead identify a category of property. Scottish law in particular used "implements" as a term of art in farm tenancy contexts.
In contract law research, "implementation" appears as a synonym for performance but carries a more procedural or operational connotation—less about the legal obligation and more about the mechanics of carrying it out. This distinction can matter when analyzing breach claims or drafting histories.
Statutory drafting research should treat "implement" as a signal word requiring attention to the implementing actor (agency, official, party), the subject being implemented (statute, regulation, order, agreement), and any conditions or deadlines attached.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's entry reflects the noun sense as primary, consistent with the 1913 Webster treatment. Burrill traces the term through its Latin root (implementum, from implere—to fill, fulfill, or accomplish) and notes Webster's characterization of it as a word of "very extensive signification." Burrill identifies both a general sense (whatever supplies wants) and a stricter sense (a thing or instrument necessary or ordinarily used for the performance of work or labor). The reference to "prosecution" in the truncated entry likely continued to "prosecution of a business or occupation," consistent with Scottish and English property law usage.
What the historical dictionaries miss almost entirely is the modern verbal sense. "Implement" as a verb meaning to carry out or execute was not the primary legal usage when Burrill wrote; it has become dominant in the 20th and 21st centuries through administrative law, statutory drafting conventions, and policy-oriented legal writing. Researchers should not expect historical legal dictionaries to illuminate this sense and should consult administrative law treatises and statutory construction materials instead.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The noun sense of "implement" retains some relevance in Scottish law and in common law jurisdictions with strong Scottish influence, particularly in agricultural tenancy and succession contexts. In American law, the noun sense is effectively obsolete. The verb sense is universal across American federal and state law but its precise legal weight varies by statutory context and is subject to interpretation under the jurisdiction's administrative procedure framework.
---