Definition
"Perindek valere" is a Latin maxim of statutory and documentary construction meaning, in substance, that a provision or instrument ought to have effect — that it should be given operative meaning rather than rendered void or surplusage. The principle holds that words in a legal document are presumed to have been used purposefully, and courts should construe them so that they produce some legal effect rather than none.
The maxim is closely allied to the broader canon of construction that no clause should be read as superfluous or meaningless if a reasonable operative interpretation is available.
---
Common Confusion
This maxim should not be confused with the related but distinct principle of "ut res magis valeat quam pereat" (that a thing should rather have effect than perish), which is more commonly cited in Anglo-American case law. The two rules point in the same direction — toward operative construction — but "ut res magis valeat" is the more familiar formulation in common law sources and is the term researchers are more likely to find indexed in English and American digests. If a historical source uses "perindek valere," it may be a variant rendering, a scribal or typographical corruption, or a civil law formulation that migrated into a common law document.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering this maxim in historical sources should recognize it as a constructional rule, not a substantive doctrine. It appears most frequently in cases involving ambiguous statutory language, deed construction, or contract disputes where one party argues a clause is void for vagueness or repugnancy.
The maxim's practical force is found in judicial reasoning rather than in black-letter rules. Researchers should search for it in the context of "rules of construction" or "canons of interpretation" sections in historical treatises and digests, rather than under substantive headings.
Note the source material recovered for this entry under Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) appears to be a fragment from an unrelated entry — likely "Perils of the Sea" — and does not contain a usable definition of "perindek valere." Researchers should treat this entry with appropriate caution. The maxim itself is attested in Latin legal literature and historical common law commentary, but it is not prominently featured in the major American legal dictionaries of the nineteenth or early twentieth century. Its absence from fuller dictionary treatment suggests it was treated as sufficiently self-evident among trained lawyers of the period, or that it circulated primarily in treatise discussions of statutory construction rather than as a standalone doctrinal term.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The source material retrieved under this headword in Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) is plainly a misattributed or corrupted fragment, referencing perils of the sea and the case Hazard v. New England Marine Insurance Co. That passage belongs to a different entry and offers no direct guidance on "perindek valere."
Because the recovered source is non-responsive, no synthesis across shelf sources is possible for this entry. Researchers should consult primary Latin law glossaries, civil law treatises, and canonical works on statutory construction — such as Dwarris on Statutes or Sutherland on Statutory Construction — for historical treatment of this principle.
---
Jurisdictional Note
As a rule of construction rather than a positive rule of law, this maxim has no jurisdiction-specific statutory home. Its application depends entirely on the court's adoption of Latin constructional canons, which varied in formality between common law and civil law jurisdictions.
---