In a contract or statute, the phrase “including without limitation” means that the list that follows is a set of examples, not the complete set. If an agreement says your duties cover “administrative tasks, including without limitation scheduling, filing, and data entry,” you are not limited to those three. Anything that qualifies as an administrative task can fall within your responsibilities, even if nobody thought to write it down.
What the Phrase Does to a List
The phrase has one job: it locks in the broadest reasonable reading of the general term that comes before the list. When a lease says the tenant is responsible for “all maintenance costs, including without limitation plumbing repairs, electrical work, and painting,” the three named items are illustrations. Roof repairs, HVAC servicing, and pest control can still be the tenant’s obligation because they also count as maintenance costs.
Think of the examples as a floor rather than a ceiling. They show the kind of thing the drafter had in mind. They do not mark the outer edge of what the clause reaches.
Why Drafters Add “Without Limitation”
Strip the phrase out and most readers would still treat “including” as introducing examples. Legal disputes, though, do not run on common sense. They run on what a judge decides after both sides argue over every word, and courts have interpretive rules that can quietly narrow a list.
The main one is a Latin canon called ejusdem generis, meaning “of the same kind.” Under that rule, when a general word follows a list of specific items, the general word gets read as covering only things similar to those specific items. If a law refers to “automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles,” a court applying the rule might exclude airplanes, because every listed item travels on land.
A second rule, expressio unius est exclusio alterius (“the expression of one thing excludes others”), pushes in the same direction. A reader applying it might conclude that if the drafter bothered to list some items, anything missing was intentionally left out. “Including without limitation” is drafted to block both lines of argument at once by telling the reader upfront that the list does not define the boundaries.
These canons are not relics. The Supreme Court applied ejusdem generis in 2024 in Fischer v. United States, holding that a broad catch-all in an obstruction statute had to be read in light of the specific conduct listed before it, rather than as a sweeping standalone prohibition.1Supreme Court of the United States. Fischer v. United States That is exactly the kind of narrowing the phrase is written to prevent.
“Including Without Limitation” and “Including but Not Limited To”
These two phrases mean the same thing. “Including but not limited to” is more common in everyday contracts. “Including without limitation” shows up more in formal agreements, government regulations, and corporate documents. Courts and legal commentators treat them interchangeably. If you see either version, the intended effect is identical: the list is illustrative, not exhaustive. The choice between them is stylistic.
Where You’ll See It
The phrase turns up across legal drafting, and recognizing it in context helps you understand what you are actually agreeing to.
Contracts and Service Agreements
Employment, consulting, and vendor contracts use the phrase to keep obligations flexible. A clause reading “Consultant will provide marketing services, including without limitation brand strategy, social media management, and content creation” lets the client ask the consultant to handle any marketing-related task, not just the three listed. If your responsibilities are written this way, assume the scope is wider than the examples suggest.
Non-Disclosure Agreements
NDAs rely on the phrase heavily when defining confidential information. A typical clause reads: “Confidential Information includes, without limitation, information pertaining to products, processes, plans, employees, financial statements, customer lists, and relationships with third parties.”2SEC.gov. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement Any non-public information the disclosing party shares can qualify, even if it does not match a named category. Your confidentiality obligations extend well beyond the examples on the page.
Federal Regulations
Agencies use the phrase so regulatory definitions can cover evolving circumstances. The Federal Acquisition Regulation defines “building or work” to “include, without limitation, buildings, structures, and improvements of all types,” followed by a long list of specific examples such as bridges, dams, highways, tunnels, sewers, power lines, and airports.3Acquisition.GOV. Part 2 – Definitions of Words and Terms Even that enormous list is not meant to be complete.
Tax Law
Federal tax law takes a different route. Rather than making every section say “including without limitation,” the Internal Revenue Code has a blanket rule: the terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S. Code 7701 – Definitions Congress built the non-exhaustive reading directly into the code. Most contracts and many other statutes have no equivalent, which is why individual clauses still need the qualifier.
What the Phrase Doesn’t Do
It is not a magic shield that guarantees unlimited scope. Courts look at the entire document, the context of the transaction, and what the parties reasonably intended. Even with “without limitation” in place, a judge may narrow the clause if the surrounding language or the circumstances point toward a more limited reading.
Fischer shows the dynamic. The statute used the broad term “otherwise,” but the Court looked at the specific examples in the surrounding provisions and concluded the catch-all had to be read as covering only conduct similar to those examples.1Supreme Court of the United States. Fischer v. United States The Court reasoned that reading the general provision as unlimited would make the specific examples pointless. That case involved a statute, but the same logic applies when courts interpret lists in contracts.
The practical lesson: if the general term is vague, the listed examples will shape how a court reads the clause, qualifier or not. The phrase helps most when the general term is already clear and the examples genuinely illustrate it.
How to Read It When You’re Signing Something
When you see “including without limitation” in a document you have been asked to sign, focus less on the listed examples and more on the general term that comes before them. That general term is what you are agreeing to. The examples are flavor.
Ask yourself whether the general term is broad enough to cover things you would not expect. If a non-compete bars you from working for “any competing business, including without limitation” three named companies, the restriction is not limited to those three. It potentially reaches any business the employer considers a competitor. If an indemnification clause makes you responsible for “all losses, including without limitation legal fees, settlements, and judgments,” you could also be on the hook for investigation costs, expert witness fees, or regulatory fines that nobody listed.
The instinct when reading a list is to treat it as complete. The phrase is the drafter’s way of telling you not to. When the stakes are high, read past the examples and think about the broadest reasonable version of the general term. That is what you are agreeing to.