Why is &#39;give effect&#39; used so often, rather than &#39;effect[uate]&#39;?
<p>I'm aware of the difference between the verbs <a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/315/effect-vs-affect">"affect" and "effect"</a>, and refer to the latter. Why use "give effect", when it can be substituted with a one-word synonym like "effect" or <a href="https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/effect?s=t" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"effectuate"
</a>?</p>

<p>I link to many uses by the <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&amp;ccId=csc-scc&amp;sort=decisionDate&amp;text=%22give%20effect%22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SCC</a> and <a href="https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?mask_path=uk%2Fcases%2FUKSC&amp;highlight=1&amp;show=10&amp;query=%28%22give+effect%22%29&amp;method=boolean&amp;sort=date" rel="nofollow noreferrer">UKSC</a>, or Acts of Parliament in Canada or the UK.  E.g., 
in <em>Morris-Garner &amp; Anor v One Step (Support) Ltd</em> <a href="https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/20.html&amp;query=(%22give+effect%22)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[2018] UKSC 20</a>, Lord Reed wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="31">
  <li>It is necessary next to consider some basic principles of the law relating to damages for breach of contract: principles which it will be necessary to bear in mind at a later stage of this judgment, when considering the case of <em>Attorney General v Blake</em> and its aftermath. Damages in contract serve a different remedial purpose from damages in tort, reflecting the different nature of the obligation breached by the wrongdoer in each case. The law of tort is concerned with civil wrongs, that is to say with breaches of duties imposed by the law, sometimes generally and sometimes on those who are party to particular relationships or have assumed particular responsibilities, which protect the interests of others in respect of such matters as their bodily integrity, their liberty, their property, their privacy and their reputation. Damages in tort are generally intended to place the claimant as nearly as possible in the same position as he would have been in if the tort had not been committed. The law of contract, on the other hand, <strong>gives effect to [I bolded.]</strong> consensual agreements entered into by particular individuals in their own interests. Remedies granted by the courts are designed to <strong>give effect to</strong> what was voluntarily undertaken by the parties. Damages in contract are therefore intended to place the claimant in the same position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Because "effectuate" and "effect" are not synonyms of "give effect to."</p>

<p>Contract law gives effect to agreements, but it doesn't effect agreements. The exchange of promises for consideration effectuate a contract, but they don't give effect to the contract.</p>

<p>Because they mean different things:</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Effectuate</strong> means to put into force or operation.</li>
<li><strong>Give effect to</strong> means to cause something to become capable of producing an effect.</li>
</ul>

legal-terms