Definition
In legal contexts, "luxury" refers to excess and extravagance in personal consumption — historically, conduct that was regulated or criminalized as an offense against public economy. At common law and under various English statutes, indulgence in excessive expenditure on food, dress, and personal adornment was treated not merely as a moral failing but as a matter of public concern, subject to legislative suppression through sumptuary regulation. The term does not carry a precise technical definition in modern Anglo-American law; its significance is almost entirely historical. In contemporary legal usage, the word appears most often in tax law, contract law, and consumer protection contexts, where "luxury goods" or "luxury items" describe high-cost non-necessities, though no single statutory definition governs uniformly across these fields.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Very wealthy and comfortable surroundings; something desirable but expensive that one can live without; something pleasant but not necessary.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A free indulgence in costly food, dress, furniture, or anything expensive which gratifies the appetites or tastes; anything which pleases the senses and is costly or difficult to obtain.
The common meaning of "luxury" has always orbited around personal indulgence and expense — a descriptive, morally neutral term in ordinary speech. The historical legal meaning adds a dimension entirely absent from everyday usage: luxury as a public wrong. The law once treated excessive personal consumption not as a private lifestyle choice but as conduct injurious to social order and the commonwealth, enforceable through statute. Modern readers encountering the word in pre-nineteenth-century legal sources should not import the neutral consumer-goods sense; the legal usage carried moral and civic condemnation.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers encountering "luxury" in historical English legal sources sometimes mistake it for a term of art with surviving legal force. It does not have surviving legal force in any general-law sense. The confusion is compounded because the word appears in two entirely different contexts across the Law Mind corpus: (1) as a historical public-law concept tied to sumptuary regulation, now obsolete, and (2) as an ordinary descriptive phrase in modern statutes and contracts (e.g., "luxury tax," "luxury apartment," "luxury goods"). These two usages share no doctrinal lineage. Do not read modern contract or tax cases using "luxury" as glossing or extending the historical offense.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The principal research value of this term is navigational and historical. Several points demand attention:
First, the offense is extinct. All sources in the Law Mind corpus agree that excess and extravagance in personal consumption "is not now punishable." This agreement is notable precisely because the sources span different periods and jurisdictions. Researchers should not assume that historical treatment of luxury as an offense has any residual legal effect in modern common-law jurisdictions.
Second, the statutory trail matters. Rapalje & Lawrence is the most useful source here because it names the relevant legislation: the English Statute of Nottingham (10 Edw. III, Stat. 3, de cibariis utendis — a statute regulating foods and provisions) and its repeal by 19 and 20 Vict. c. 64. It also references 1 Jac. I. c. 25. Researchers tracing the history of sumptuary regulation in English law should follow these statutory citations directly rather than relying on dictionary synthesis. The abolition of the offense is tied to specific legislative acts, not merely to the decay of common law.
Third, Anderson's Dictionary cross-references "SUMPTUARY" rather than providing a standalone definition — an editorial judgment that the term's legal substance lives under that heading. Researchers should treat the two dictionary entries as a linked pair when working in the Law Mind corpus.
Fourth, in modern legal research, "luxury" most often appears in: (a) tax law, where "luxury taxes" are imposed on high-value consumer goods (vehicles, aircraft, boats, jewelry, furs); (b) landlord-tenant law, where "luxury" classification affects rent regulation eligibility in jurisdictions with rent stabilization schemes; and (c) contract and consumer protection law, where the distinction between necessities and luxuries affects the enforceability of contracts made by minors — a minor may disaffirm contracts for luxuries but is bound for necessities. This last usage is doctrinally live and important. Researchers should not conflate the necessity/luxury distinction in contract law with the historical sumptuary-offense meaning.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The five source dictionaries converge with unusual uniformity: Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Bouvier's all render nearly identical definitions, crediting Wharton as the underlying authority. This degree of textual uniformity suggests that nineteenth-century compilers were copying from a common source rather than independently analyzing the term. The definition was effectively settled and borrowed across the shelf.
Anderson's Dictionary stands apart by declining to define the term independently and instead cross-referencing SUMPTUARY. This editorial choice is informative: Anderson treated luxury as a subcategory of sumptuary law rather than as a freestanding legal concept, which is the more analytically defensible position. His entry is confused by what appears to be a typographical artifact — the block of case citations following the cross-reference (Ward v. Kadel, Re Barker, Dexter v. Hall, etc.) are clearly misassigned and appear to belong to an adjacent entry on lunacy, not to luxury. Researchers should not treat those citations as authority on the law of luxury.
No source in the corpus provides doctrinal analysis of the offense itself — what conduct it covered, what penalties applied, or how prosecutions proceeded. For that substance, researchers must go to the primary statutory sources identified by Rapalje & Lawrence.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The historical offense against public economy tied to luxury and extravagance was primarily an English law phenomenon, rooted in parliamentary sumptuary statutes. American jurisdictions inherited no operative version of this offense. In modern U.S. law, "luxury" as a legal term appears most consequentially in New York rent stabilization law (where luxury deregulation thresholds determine coverage) and in federal and state luxury tax schemes, both of which are jurisdiction-specific and require local statutory research.
---