3 ms·

The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably un

The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply."

thrill 9y ago
"Probably" is not how laws work.
- greenshackle2 9y ago
  It turns out laws are ambiguous and sometimes it's hard to tell what the outcome of a judgment will be in advance (until judges actually interpret the law and make the call.) It can be hard to even tell which specific laws apply to the case. So, yes, 'probably' is how the law works, if you don't have solid precedents. ('Probably' could also just mean that there is solid precedent but the author themselves didn't do the research to figure it out. Legal research is a lot of work. It's, like, an actual job to do that sort of thing.)
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Isn't it exactly how laws work? Even for the worst of crimes, the perpetrator will only probably get caught and only probably get convicted.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  "Probably" is perhaps one of the better ways for reporters to give their opinions on questions of law that have not yet had their day in court.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  If 'probably' was not how laws work, then there would NEVER be a court case; why would the losing side go to court if the answer was certain? They go to court because laws are ALL about 'probably'.
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  > "Probably" is not how laws work. It totally is. In the sense that you have no way to predict with certainty what a judge or jury will rule. Especially in cases where the law seems ambiguous, and/or where it or the relevant aspect of it not been tested in court much.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Right? The entire system is based in 'precedent', which is just a nice way of saying "well this is how we decided we'd interpret it or something similar before, let's do that" And rulings are the reciprocal "okay" "Probably" is exactly how the law works. There's a reason it's called "making your case".
    - jrochkind1 9y ago
      Basing the system on precendent is of course an attempt to increase predictability, and reduce incidence of different judges deciding different things in similar circumstances. The system tries to reduce the "probably" for certainty, but we're still humans.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
The author doesn't justify that claim though -- the rest of the article delved into the contract of carriage, but that quoted part was a all hand-wave, "in effect" and "probably" without citing any specific behaviors or laws.

The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply."

thrill 9y ago

"Probably" is not how laws work.

greenshackle2 9y ago
It turns out laws are ambiguous and sometimes it's hard to tell what the outcome of a judgment will be in advance (until judges actually interpret the law and make the call.) It can be hard to even tell which specific laws apply to the case. So, yes, 'probably' is how the law works, if you don't have solid precedents. ('Probably' could also just mean that there is solid precedent but the author themselves didn't do the research to figure it out. Legal research is a lot of work. It's, like, an actual job to do that sort of thing.)
maxerickson 9y ago
Isn't it exactly how laws work? Even for the worst of crimes, the perpetrator will only probably get caught and only probably get convicted.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
"Probably" is perhaps one of the better ways for reporters to give their opinions on questions of law that have not yet had their day in court.
cortesoft 9y ago
If 'probably' was not how laws work, then there would NEVER be a court case; why would the losing side go to court if the answer was certain? They go to court because laws are ALL about 'probably'.
jrochkind1 9y ago
> "Probably" is not how laws work. It totally is. In the sense that you have no way to predict with certainty what a judge or jury will rule. Especially in cases where the law seems ambiguous, and/or where it or the relevant aspect of it not been tested in court much.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  Right? The entire system is based in 'precedent', which is just a nice way of saying "well this is how we decided we'd interpret it or something similar before, let's do that" And rulings are the reciprocal "okay" "Probably" is exactly how the law works. There's a reason it's called "making your case".
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    Basing the system on precendent is of course an attempt to increase predictability, and reduce incidence of different judges deciding different things in similar circumstances. The system tries to reduce the "probably" for certainty, but we're still humans.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

The author doesn't justify that claim though -- the rest of the article delved into the contract of carriage, but that quoted part was a all hand-wave, "in effect" and "probably" without citing any specific behaviors or laws.