3 ms·
You are arguing in favour of the above argument. If case law has to be established on a case by case basis, then because the law is a priori insufficient.
by posterboy 8y ago
You are arguing in favour of the above argument. If case law has to be established on a case by case basis, then because the law is a priori insufficient.
- pseudolus 8y agoNo individual statute can encompass all possibilities hence the need for case law to clarify the law - it's a distinguishing characteristic of common law systems and, at least with respect to interpretation of statutes, also civil law systems.
- posterboy 8y ago> No individual statute can encompass all possibilities In the same sense, a benevolent reading of OP's would find that it doesn't implicate all Anti Trust decisions, but just alleges that it's prone to, well, miscarriage of justice, I guess, having left specific examples to be specified by the factfinders, other commentators. I get that leaving arguments open like that is considered bad form. No need to tell me that Anti Trust is based on prior case law and thus based on Examples. I wouldn't know. I feel that they didn't feel the need to spell those cases out again is a general problem, and I see that as a problem more from a coding persöective. It's horrible spaghetti code and bound to be buggy. As debugging has it, inspections run very slow and for a really good development experience you have to pay suppliers for support and fixes. Vice versa, some vital functionality may be outsourced from the OS to third parties, or restricted by the OS. Complaints against such practice yield the typical recommendation to use free software or implement your own stack, instead.