Definition
Latin: "that which is understood beneath" or "that which is implied." A maxim of legal interpretation holding that terms, conditions, or obligations that are necessarily implied by the nature of an instrument, transaction, or legal relationship are treated as if they were expressly stated. What a reasonable reader would understand to be present is not regarded as absent merely because it has not been written out.
The maxim operates as a canon of construction: courts will read implied terms into instruments and pleadings rather than declare them defective for silence on matters that all parties plainly understood to be included. The full form most commonly cited is *Quod subintelligitur non deest* — "what is understood is not wanting."
A companion maxim, *Quod tacite intelligitur deesse non videtur* ("what is tacitly understood is not considered to be wanting"), reinforces the same principle with slightly different framing: tacit shared understanding carries the same legal force as express statement.
---
Common Language
This is pure Latin legal jargon with no common English counterpart. The COMMON LANGUAGE section is omitted.
---
Common Confusion
QUOD SUBINTELLIGITUR is occasionally conflated with implied covenant doctrine and with the broader principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* (the expression of one thing excludes others). These are distinct and, in some applications, pull in opposite directions. *Expressio unius* counsels courts to treat express enumeration as exhaustive; *quod subintelligitur* counsels courts to treat necessary implications as present even when unexpressed. A researcher finding one maxim cited should check whether the opposing maxim was also argued, as their tension is often the heart of a construction dispute.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in its Latin form in historical case law and treatises; modern courts restating the same idea will typically say "implied terms," "necessary implication," or invoke specific implied covenant doctrine without citing the Latin. A researcher working in 19th-century materials must recognize the maxim to follow the argument; a researcher working in modern materials should cross-search implied term and implied covenant doctrine to find the same reasoning operating under different labels.
The maxim is particularly relevant in three research contexts:
**Deed and conveyance construction.** Historical property law used *quod subintelligitur* to supply terms the grantor plainly intended but omitted. When searching deed dispute cases in earlier reporters, the Latin form is the reliable search hook.
**Pleadings and instruments.** Courts applied the maxim to save technically deficient pleadings and instruments where the missing element was obviously understood by all parties. This connects to the broader historical treatment of formal defects in pleading.
**Contract interpretation.** The principle feeds directly into what became the modern implied-in-law and implied-in-fact term distinction. Understanding this Latin ancestor helps researchers trace how doctrines evolved across periods.
The two companion maxims (*non deest* and *tacite intelligitur*) often appear together in the same passage or case. Encountering one should prompt a search for the others — and for any judicial discussion of their relative scope.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) presents this term not as a standalone entry but embedded within a cluster of related Latin maxims, reflecting the 19th-century common law practice of organizing interpretive principles by their Latin formulations. Black's cites *Quod subintelligitur non deest* to 2 Ld. Raym. 832 and the companion maxim *Quod tacite intelligitur deesse non videtur* to 4 Coke 22a — both canonical reporters for maxim collection in English law.
What Black's does not do — and what later dictionaries rarely remedy — is trace how courts actually applied these maxims against one another or explain the circumstances under which *quod subintelligitur* would yield to *expressio unius*. The historical dictionary treatment is essentially taxonomic: it lists the maxims, provides the translation, and supplies a reporter cite. The analytical work is left to case research.
No substantive divergence exists between the *non deest* and *tacite intelligitur* forms at the level of practical application; they are treated in historical sources as restatements of the same underlying principle with slightly different rhetorical emphases.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The maxim originated in English common law and was received across common law jurisdictions generally. Because modern American courts rarely cite the Latin form, jurisdictional variation is best traced through the implied term and implied covenant bodies of case law specific to each jurisdiction, rather than through the maxim itself.
---