2 ms·

Which leads to loss of trust in Court System. Uncertainity in judgement is something to minimize.

Mathnerd314 10y ago
Not really, particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Similarly in contract law, the ideal contract is the one you sign and then never look at again. If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. And also legal certainty tends to decrease over time: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=facultyworkingpapers http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
- wav-part 10y ago
  > particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Its uncertainity intended by law itself. All abided parties are most likely comfortable with it. No one would rely on this certainity. Put it simply, You cant expect more certainity than the contract/law itself defines. > If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. The loss of trust is exactly the scenarios where contracts are most useful. The contract would most likely have cancellation clause, which means it should terminate expectedly without any suprises assuming contract itself is objective (That is, It should not grant uncertainity like criminal laws). So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    >> So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract. Which has no bearing on whether or not it has/would-be-ruled-to-have unconscionable terms.

Not really, particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Similarly in contract law, the ideal contract is the one you sign and then never look at again. If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. And also legal certainty tends to decrease over time: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=facultyworkingpapers http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...

wav-part 10y ago
> particularly in criminal law there a wide variety of punishments to "make an example" to deter others from similar conduct, with little effort to make the punishments uniform. Its uncertainity intended by law itself. All abided parties are most likely comfortable with it. No one would rely on this certainity. Put it simply, You cant expect more certainity than the contract/law itself defines. > If you have to go back and discuss the terms then there's already been a loss of trust; the courts are just there to pick up the pieces. The loss of trust is exactly the scenarios where contracts are most useful. The contract would most likely have cancellation clause, which means it should terminate expectedly without any suprises assuming contract itself is objective (That is, It should not grant uncertainity like criminal laws). So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  >> So "Natives getting fixed amount in return for Li mining" is an example of objective contract. Which has no bearing on whether or not it has/would-be-ruled-to-have unconscionable terms.