In terrorem, Latin for "into/about fear", is a legal threat, usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.
In terrorem clauses (referred to in English language as no-contest clauses) are also used in wills to keep beneficiaries from contesting the will by either completely disinheriting them from any share, or reducing their share to a nominal amount. These clauses are not uniformly recognized.
As the court alluded to in Twombly, the costs associated with discovery often underlay the economic calculus which may motivate the settlement of an in terrorem strike suit. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 created a heightened pleading standard for cases involving violations of securities regulation in the United States in response to perceptions of abuse in this area.H.R. Rep. No. 104-369, at 41 (1995) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730. This increased particularity is a departure from the "notice pleading" standard enumerated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which would otherwise apply.
In some US states, in terrorem clauses are disfavored, but can still be enforceable. In New York, for example, the Estates, Powers and Trust Law codifies the use of, and the limits of, in terrorem clauses in EPT 3-3.5(b).
In terrorem has also been referred to by the High Court of Australia in the 2012 case of Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. The unanimous judgement referred to the term when describing the doctrine of penalties and its operation in the case of unfair fees levied by large banks against their customers. Andrews v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd 247 CLR 205 at 10 (French CJ, Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ)
Many intellectual property lawyer send in terrorem letters to persons accused of violating their clients' trademark rights, before resorting to court proceedings, which threaten litigation if the accused do not comply with the written demand.
The Apache License prevents patent litigation, by threatening further litigation from revoking the patent rights granted under the license to anyone who sues for patent infringement.
The term in terrorem is also sometimes used in law to describe slippery slope or snowball effect arguments, as in the following passage:
|
|