Under the Six Types Of Non-Hearsay, which example illustrates a Verbal Act?

• A. A statement that clarifies ambiguous conduct
• B. An impeachment by prior conviction
• C. Capacity of the declarant to observe
• D. The fact that the statement was made

Answer: (A)

Verbal acts are words that themselves create, modify, or terminate a legal right or obligation, so they’re offered for the action they perform rather than for their truth. A statement that clarifies ambiguous conduct fits this idea because the utterance itself changes how the conduct is understood and can drive a legal outcome—it's about the act the words accomplish, not about whether the content is true. For example, a pronouncement or clarification that settles how a transaction should be interpreted can finalise an obligation or status, which is the essence of a verbal act.

Impeachment by prior conviction involves credibility, not a legally operative statement. Capacity to observe concerns the declarant’s ability to perceive, not the performative effect of words. The fact that a statement was made records the occurrence of utterance, but does not illustrate the performative nature of words that create rights or obligations.