“Unreasonably Reasonable: How Law’s Favorite Word Makes No Sense”

“Reasonable”: The Law’s Most Unreasonable Obsession

Let’s talk about the most overused, underdefined, and legally sanctified word in jurisprudence: reasonable. The law adores it. Courts invoke it. Lawyers weaponize it. And the rest of us? We nod politely while secretly Googling “what does reasonable mean in law” and end up more confused than before.

Reasonable According to Whom?

To one person, it’s reasonable to microwave fish in the office kitchen. To another, that’s a war crime.

To one judge, it’s reasonable to expect a tenant to tolerate mold for a few weeks. To another, that’s a fungal uprising.

The law’s solution? Invent a fictional character called the reasonable person. This person is:

• Not too smart, not too stupid
• Not too sensitive, not too reckless
• Basically, someone who lives in a perpetual state of balanced judgment

No one has ever met this person. They don’t exist. But they’re the benchmark for everything from negligence to nuisance to contractual obligations. If you fall short of their imaginary standards, congratulations—you’re legally unreasonable.

“The Reasonable Man: Confused since 1837 and still setting standards.”

The Tests That Test Your Patience

To measure reasonableness, the law has devised a series of tests. Not the fun kind with multiple choice. These are:

• The Bolam Test (medical negligence): Would a responsible body of professionals do this?
• The Wednesbury Test (administrative law): Is it so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever do it?
• The Man on the Clapham Omnibus test: Would a hypothetical London commuter find this acceptable?

These tests sound like riddles from a bureaucratic escape room. And they’re applied with all the consistency of a toddler choosing ice cream flavors.

Flexibility to the Point of Collapse

Legal scholars defend “reasonable” as a flexible standard. It allows judges to adapt to context, they say. It’s pragmatic. It’s nuanced.

Translation: it’s vague enough to mean whatever the court wants it to mean.

This flexibility is great—until you’re the one trying to draft a contract, teach a law class, or explain to your neighbor why their fermented food isn’t “reasonably fragrant.”

Reasonable Is the New Unreasonable

In practice, “reasonable” is a linguistic Trojan horse. It sneaks ambiguity into legal documents, then explodes into litigation when parties disagree. It’s the legal equivalent of saying “we’ll figure it out later” and then billing you for the figuring.

So next time someone says “don’t worry, it’s just a reasonable clause,” ask them to define it. Watch them squirm.