Definition
Precatory, advisory, or directory in character. A word, phrase, or provision is recommendatory when it expresses counsel, suggestion, or preference rather than a binding command. The term appears most frequently in wills and testamentary instruments, where it contrasts with mandatory or peremptory language.
In the context of testamentary construction, recommendatory words are those by which a testator advises or suggests a course of action — such as expressing a wish that property be used in a certain way or that a beneficiary be treated generously — without imposing a legal obligation enforceable against the recipient. Courts must determine whether such language creates a trust or binding direction, or merely expresses a hope that carries no legal consequence.
The concept extends beyond wills. Administrative bodies, international organizations, and legislative committees may issue recommendatory resolutions or reports — documents that advise action without mandating it. In this broader usage, "recommendatory" describes the non-binding character of the instrument itself.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Of or pertaining to a recommendation.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Serving to recommend; recommending; commendatory.
The common meaning tracks the legal meaning closely in form, but diverges in consequence. In ordinary usage, calling something "recommendatory" simply describes its advisory character without further implication. In law — particularly will construction — characterizing language as recommendatory rather than mandatory is a dispositive interpretive choice: it determines whether a trust arises, whether a fiduciary duty attaches, and whether a court can enforce the testator's expressed preference at all.
Common Confusion
RECOMMENDATORY vs. PRECATORY: The two terms are used interchangeably in most legal sources and are functionally equivalent in testamentary construction. "Precatory" is more common in modern case law; "recommendatory" appears more often in older treatises and the Black's editions. Researchers should search both terms when surveying historical sources.
RECOMMENDATORY vs. DIRECTORY: "Directory" provisions are those that guide or instruct without invalidating non-compliance — distinct from both mandatory provisions (which void non-compliance) and recommendatory ones (which impose no duty at all). A recommendatory provision does not even rise to the level of a directory instruction; it is purely advisory. The distinction matters when courts classify statutory language or procedural rules.
Why It Matters in Research
The central research trap is terminological drift. Early authorities — including both Black's editions — treat "recommendatory" and "precatory" as synonyms and use them interchangeably in discussions of precatory trusts. By the mid-twentieth century, "precatory" largely displaced "recommendatory" in American judicial opinions, while "recommendatory" survived in academic commentary and in discussions of non-testamentary instruments. A researcher relying solely on keyword searches for "recommendatory" will miss the bulk of relevant case law indexed under "precatory."
In will construction cases, the legal stakes of the recommendatory/mandatory distinction are high: the same words can either create an enforceable trust or leave a beneficiary with complete discretion. Courts apply varying tests — some emphasizing the presence or absence of imperative language, others looking to the overall testamentary scheme — meaning that identical recommendatory language may be treated differently across jurisdictions and time periods.
For researchers working with international law materials or administrative law sources, "recommendatory" retains currency as a descriptor of non-binding instruments (resolutions, guidelines, model rules). In that context, the term's meaning is stable but its legal significance depends entirely on the framework governing the issuing body.
Corpus connections: researchers tracing the precatory trust doctrine will find "recommendatory" concentrated in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century sources; the transition to "precatory" as the dominant term is itself a useful periodization marker in the Law Mind corpus.
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's editions give identical treatment: "precatory, advisory, or directory," followed by the same explanatory sentence about testamentary language that does not express the testator's command in peremptory form. Neither edition develops the term beyond its will-construction context, and neither addresses the broader administrative or international law usage that became significant in the twentieth century.
The definitions agree on the core meaning and offer no substantive divergence between editions. The second edition's entry trails directly into the separate headword RECOMPENSATION, suggesting both were brief cross-referential entries rather than developed treatments — consistent with the historical dictionaries' tendency to subordinate "recommendatory" to the fuller discussion found under PRECATORY and PRECATORY TRUST.
What the historical sources miss: neither edition addresses the interpretive tests courts apply to distinguish recommendatory from mandatory language, nor do they note the jurisdictional variation in how precatory/recommendatory words are weighted in will construction. Researchers should treat the dictionary entries as orientation, not doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
American courts vary in how readily they convert recommendatory testamentary language into enforceable trusts. Some jurisdictions apply a strong presumption against precatory trusts absent clear mandatory intent; others conduct a holistic inquiry into the testator's purpose. Researchers should identify the controlling jurisdiction before relying on general doctrine drawn from treatises or restatements.